Political Spundit

Arizona or Common Sense?

2010-07-23T04:48:00.001-11:00

This is where pro-illegal immigration activists fail to understand legal equality.

I show ID when:

1. Pulled over by the police,
2. Making purchases with a department store card,
3. Showing up for a doctor's appointment,
4. Applying for a credit card or loan,
5. Applying for or renewing a driver's license or passport,
6. Applying for any kind of insurance,
7. Registering at a college or public school,
8. Donating blood,
9. Obtaining prescription drugs,
10. Voting,
11. Making some debit card purchases, especially if out of state,
12. Collecting a boarding pass to travel by plane or train,
13. Checking into a hotel,
14. Checking a book out of the library,
15. Going clubbing, buying any drink, cigarette, dry ice, lighters and more,
16. Attending most Phillips Academy and campus events.

All citizens are legally required to carry identification for the event of being stopped, and all visitors or residents are mandated by the feds to carry a passport with a visa or other documents if in the United States - this is just what Washington says [8 US Code Section 1304(e) and 1306(a)].

We who live in America are required to prove who we are nearly every day; why should certain people in this country not do so, and remain invisible to the law? Why do some legally privileged people expect America to exempt them from basic border security practiced by every other country?

You can rant about the details and nuances of legislation and policy, but at the end of the day, one reasonable goal needs to be achieved: equality under the law.

The politicians and activists that perpetuate a narrative of "victimization" and "injustice" stall legal equality for the rest of Americans - and always for political favors in elections and donations by powerful groups.

Do not defend the status-quo injustice against law abiding citizens - find a reasonable way to end it.

America: Untapped and Bountiful

2010-05-27T08:54:00.009-11:00

The idea of endless untapped bounty, abundance, wealth is undoubtedly a great American idea. This idea parallels the great American ideas of freedom and natural rights, initiative, autonomy, restricted government, independence and self-reliance.

These aforementioned “American” ideas are often equated with the historical and social context of the American people. Geographers, historians and sociologists agree that the geography of the New World’s great continent proved central in the formation of these American notions of liberty, independence, and limited government: the great oceans that distanced America from the armies of Europe brought economic and political independence; the broad lands that reduced the effectiveness of governance, promoted freedom; the lack of population and competing interests resulting from resource competition proved intensive governance ineffective; the great lands and expanse of uninhabited lands resulted in the freedom to be left alone, act as one felt, and access resources to generate wealth.

The abundance of America started with its very discovery by Europeans, overcrowded on a continent, desperate for resources and land. Explorers wrote of its magnificent forests, and “uninhabited” coastlines for the taking. Explorers landed on the Americas, claiming the continent and all on it, as theirs. The race for this abundance began.

This idea, from its very beginning, played out initially to be a myth – pilgrims arriving in the United States starved, ran out of gunpowder, could not grow crops, and did not find iron ore for tools. However, this idea and its more modern variation (discussed later) was most fundamental in America's attraction of immigrants from all over the world.

The abundance of America continued to set this land apart from others’. In the American War of Independence, the abundance of America became tied to the very strength of America and Americans – almost a form of patriotism. Thomas Paine, an America Revolutionary Thinker said in Common Sense: “ Tar, timber, iron, and cordage are her natural produce. We need go abroad for nothing. More land there is yet unoccupied, which…may be hereafter applied, not only to the discharge of the present debt, but to the constant support of government. No nation under heaven hath such an advantage as this…The infant state of the Colonies…is an argument in favor of independence. We are sufficiently numerous…” Paine even goes so far as to say that America’s natural plenty grants it the right to be independent, and is a testament to the strength of America.

The expansion of the United States beyond the confines of New England forests and Virginian hills meant unlimited resources for human inhabitation. The Ohio Territories, with its natural forests and waterways, provided the first taste of natural wealth for Americans. America immediately more than doubled in size with the Louisiana Purchase, opening up vast prairies with Bison and lush Louisiana wetlands. The Oregon Territories and Mexican Cession opened up Americans to more mineral wealth and land before Americans even settled the plains. John Wayne summarized the current mentality of Americans best when he said: “I don't feel we did wrong in taking this great country away from them. There were great numbers of people who needed new land, and the Indians were selfishly trying to keep it for themselves”. Aside from the politics, the underlying assumptions had not changed: that “this great country” had “new land” enough for “great numbers of people”.

Many of the initial descriptions of the frontier, with its resources were imaginary: fictitious depictions made by those on the eastern seaboard. One 19th century American drawing depicted the West as nude women tending an endless garden – both metaphors for endless resource utilization. One 19th century Illinois newspaper editor said this about the west: “Shall this garden of beauty lie dormant in its wild and useless luxuriance? Not only for our own use, but for the use of man.”

The California Gold Rush prompted the first great migration to the West, preceded only by the Westward migration of a band of Latter-Day Saints escaping religious persecution. Notions of gold in the East created a great stir, prompted by exaggerations of Western mineral wealth. [example] The new available land, combined with the Homestead Act, allowed every American to access vast amounts of land. In the Land Run of 1889, fifty thousand people rushed from the borders of Oklahoma to claim their 160 acres of the vast Unassigned Lands; like a marathon, men and women charged onto these “free lands” upon the blow of the Army’s whistle . Popular campaigns had been launched to open these lands. Within several hours of the opening, Oklahoma City and Guiterm had been established, organized, settled with ten thousand residents. At the closing of the frontier, Celebrity Historian Frederick J. Turner held in this ”frontier thesis” that the American character arrived from the abundance of free land, water, and forest; the settling of free land produced the very American traits of self-reliance, individualism, inventiveness, restless energy, mobility, materialism, and optimism.
Turner was concerned that the closing of the frontier would mean the end of this American idea. Isaiah Bowman wrote in Foreign Affairs:
“The pioneer is no longer a man armed with only a rifle and an axe…in a clearing in the forest. He is not only equipped in a totally different manner, sometimes even with modern machinery, but his incentives are no longer the same…it is a question whether the pioneer spirit as manifest in the west-ward spread of settlers in the united States still exists or weather it has passed out.”
While the west-ward spread may have ended, pioneer-spirit in the modern day, produced by the narrative of a great, untapped American abundance, has not. The 1970s energy crisis revived the idea of great American abundance in the public sphere.

Ronald Reagan ran in the 1980 election promising to further utilize America’s abundant potential in energy resources. In one portion of his nomination acceptance speech, Reagan said: “It is impossible to capture in words the splendor of this vast continent…America must get to work producing more energy. Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched…the economic prosperity of our people is a fundamental part of our environment.”

Noted Geographer XX once said ““No other area of the earth’s crust of similar size will ever match of exceed in quantity and variety the vast mineral wealth of the United States. Our people have had the skills necessary to utilize this rich endowment in building the industrial might of America. The United States is the world’s leading producer and consumer of minerals.” However, since the closing of the frontier, the population of our lands, and the consumption of our resources, this noble American idea may no longer be valid. The Geographer continued: “The heavy drain on our resources in the past is beginning to show up in declining or state production rates…We are a have-not nation in many essential commodities…The impact of depletion is showing up in the United States in no uncertain terms.”

The dawning reality of dwindling reserves and idea of American abundance was tossed around in the American public during the 2008 election year. The blunt, bumper-sticker catchphrase “Drill Baby, Drill” became a talking point of the most prominent conservative politicians. Its popularity among traditionalist-conservatives led to a Reaganesque revival of the need to put the idea of untapped bounty to work – to utilize America’s “vast” resources. This message resonated so deeply in Americans that offshore oil exploration was soon authorized in A.N.W.R. and the southern Atlantic Seaboard.

As America, and the West especially, base less of their wealth and production on raw materials, the idea of natural material abundance may have morphed into material consumer abundance, and the idea of plentiful economic wealth and opportunity.

Michelle Obama, at a rally for the President of the United States, used an allegory of a pie to present an alternative to this idea. She lectured to the crowd: “The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so someone else can have more.”

Glenn Beck, the foremost conservative TV talk show host, repeated this very fundamental, individualist frontier idea of abundance: “Success and money -- it's not finite. This is America…You've got to look at money and success as the ocean…Let's stop thinking about pieces of pie…this is America. We're a freaking bakery. Bake more. Make as many pies as you want.”

The United States Chamber of Commerce launched this advertisement campaign in its attempt to appeal to this fundamental American idea for legitimacy.

A two minute commercial depicting the following shots was also aired.

“Unravel three hundred million individual economies”

Notice the frequent scenes of American entrepreneurs, embodying the pioneer spirit through their work and accomplishment, standing before the abundance of their produce and material inputs. While the advertisement promotes the idea of ‘dreaming big’, it does so by appealing to the material and opportunistic abundance harnessed by the American entrepreneurial pioneer. In many ways, these two American figures, the pioneer and entrepreneur, are connected in their quest to tap the plentiful, great, vast America.

Desperate Housewives flaunts stereotypes, as usual

2010-05-14T17:25:00.004-11:00

http://hd.openv.com/tv_play-hdteleplay_20100223_7172500.html

Desperate Housewives is obviously of a different caliber than Mad Men: the former being more like a comic soap-opera, the latter being a cable drama. However, narratives about gender and family roles form the foundation of both of these shows. While both shows provide a satire of the gender stereotypes of the era, the more comic nature of Desperate Housewives’ drama means that it often provides satire through the breakdown of these gender roles in the situation. The acknowledgment of these stereotypes, and the sometimes contradicting reality, is what we should look at in Episode 15.

Episode 15 peeks into the widest range of gender and family stereotypes relevant to Media Studies in Season Six. I strongly encourage anyone to watch it. The drama in this episode is more independent from other episodes, and understandable by those who don’t follow the show.

The episode is broken down based around Robin’s interaction with each “desperate housewife” in the show.

The single Robin is portrayed as a sexual object from scene one merely because of her beauty.

The first meeting she has with the married couples presents the first stereotype about married male and female roles with regards to their interaction with external women. The men flock to her side to court her, as the wives both resent her and their men’s overwhelming sexual urges. With the scene of the women in the kitchen vilifying the single beautiful woman as a threat to their marriages, the situation could not be more similar to the birthday party in Mad Men.

Interestingly, throughout the entire show, the men and “teenage boys” are not expected to be modest, responsible, and held accountable for their interaction with Robin. In the following scenes, the parents do not hold their teenage boy accountable through punishment for wanting to solicit sex and stare at a woman, but rather acknowledge his inability to control himself with “hormones holding his brain hostage” and breach of morality. She instead confronts Robin about “putting on a show” for the boy, as if she is responsible for the boy’s sexual thoughts.

In that scene, the wife holds a wooden spoon for cooking the whole time, and she keeps the husband’s “immoral” fantasy of pre-marital sex in check. 1950s family sitcoms -- sound familiar?

Lynette and Tom Scavo interact in the living room fulfilling both gender roles: domestic woman with baby folding laundry, working man in office attire on the couch dictating to the woman. The comedy lies in that she rejects that stereotype, but quickly falls back into the female stereotype by being bought off with jewelry, and by offering sex as a gift to the husband. The comedy lies in the fact that the strong-willed Lynette rejects the stereotype. She rejects the idea of the jewelry (a physical manifestation of the husband’s breadwinner-ship and desire to please the wife) much like Betty subtly does to Don Draper’s gift of an elegant watch. This relationship is an example of the gendered social contract of marriage in The Way We Never Were: a wife’s domesticity and sex in exchange for the husband’s security and providing for a lifestyle.

The next comedy again lies in gender roles - the fact that Robin doesn’t know anything about baking and cakes, and that she greatly idolizes those who are more domestic than her. This satire only exists because the stereotype is that women learn how to bake cakes – a symbol for domesticity. The satire continues in "Susan and the stripper" when Susan heats microwaved food for her husband since she is unable to cook. She is unable to cook and soothe her husband - this makes Susan feel awkward since she, within one minute, failed to fulfill two obligations expected by the stereotype of a wife.

The following comedy lies in the inability for the wife to arouse her husband and offer sex, as being able to do so successfully is seen as a given in the traditional role of a wife. The satire also comes from the character of Bree – being an untraditional housewife: the breadwinner, the more responsible, the more mobile one in the marriage.

The story goes on, and these narratives play out on Wisteria Lane. But the narratives that tie the episode together, and to Media Studies, are narratives about the gendered contract of marriage, and gendered distribution of responsibility for work, marriage, and sexual urges.

Piracy, Technology, Media

2010-05-14T15:09:00.001-11:00

In nostalgic continuance of winter term, I stumbled upon a Huffington Post commentary The End of Hollywood as We Know It. It argues that "this is not a happy time to be an entertainment industry executive", because technology allows people to defeat advertising, leads to piracy, and perpetuates the idea that content should be free. Googled anyone?

The argument is supported by a hyper-linked news story that was reported by the Post that day: Limewire, the world's largest content-sharing network, was determined by a New York Federal Judge to be held responsible for copyright infringement for not cracking down on Limewire user's sharing of copyrighted content (the downloading of which makes up a bulk of its traffic).

The implications of this ruling are great - social networking and chat such as Google Wave/Chat, Facebook, Windows Live Messenger/Spaces, Yahoo may also face suits by media industries for not cracking down on the sharing of copyrighted songs or photos. Will email also soon become required to include screening for copyrighted content sharing? What does this mean for internet privacy?

Just two weeks ago, in a news story buried pages deep, in a tiny column, on the New York Times, the internet-control power-grab by the FCC was said to have moved forward after it used the tactic of reclassifying the internet broadband as traditional phone networks. This gives it the power to regulate broadband distribution, without congressional approval, despite having been denied that right after a Federal Court of Appeals case, Comcast vs. FCC, in April. Under these guidelines, it does not have the power to regulate content, but it certainly does have the power to regulate content distribution - such as copyrighted material. I'm no legal scholar, but does the FCC have the capacity to take the initiative and become a federal executive-branch internet policeman? It seems so.

What about content? A the Columbia Basin Herald put it "have no fear, for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski...has said that “FCC policies should not include regulating Internet content.” There's nothing more reassuring than when a federal official asks you to rest your trust in federal self-restriction and moderation.

Not to blow the story out of proportion, but the implications of the Limewire-piracy lawsuit and FCC power grab may be signaling a change in how the free media ecosystems interact with our human need for control. Excuse the pun, but is this a change to be hoped for?

American Heroes, World Heroes (under construction)

2010-05-09T16:32:00.063-11:00

“A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.” - Bob Dylan

“A hero is someone who has given his or her life to something bigger than oneself.” - Joesph Campbell

These two quotes combined present the essence of heroism: taking upon responsibility for a greater cause. The only variable in this equation is the cause; the extraordinary cause that one seeks has to be respected by a population in order for the defined hero to become their heroic figure.

Because people are social beings and consolidate their emotions and identities through/into a group's, peoples throughout history have collectively taken upon a cause, or idolized a certain cause. The heroes of these peoples are those that have taken upon the responsibility of that cause, for whenever it existed.

There are universal causes heroes fight for: the protection of "innocent life", sacrificing for or defending the "virtuous" or "helpless", pursuit of "justice" for "criminals", and the similar 'conquest over "evil forces"'.

These quoted phrases have different meanings to different peoples around the world, but these causes form the foundation for causes which mankind's heroes have striven to achieve.

What are the American causes?

We can extrapolate these causes from the three foundations, with the application of American culture and values.

Americans can generally agree that children and civilians are innocent - while nearly universal, this view is particularly entrenched in the United States, in the face of indiscriminate terrorist attacks, where slaughter of citizens is not tolerated.

Justice can mean so many things in world, let alone in America. Some Americans think of justice in a re-distributive sense; most think of it as equality under the law; all think of it as punishing people for their crimes. How Americans define 'crimes' starts to involve American culture and history more than anything. Our puritan-based values vilify stealing, lying, arrogance, rape, murder (when not in the name of God), superstition. Our nation, founded on ideas of liberty and the inalienable rights of man, arising from the American Revolution, vilify oppression and inequality. The helpless in American's eyes tend to be the poor, the widowed, the homeless/landless, the children, and in their own category, women. The evil forces in American belief tend to be the aforementioned criminals. However, the historical development of United States has produced certain "evils" that still ring in the minds of Americans today: the untamed frontier, hostile Native American tribes, Hispanics, Nazis, Japanese, Communists - essentially, the savageness of humankind and nature.

Thus, our heroes thus become figures that fight these savages, defend the rule of law and our puritan traditions, protect women and children, while remaining honest and humble. Firefighters, policemen, soldiers, the romanticized Cowboy, and the charitable, become our American heroes.

What about other peoples?

China during the 1960s, during the Cultural Revolution, desperately needed heroes. Heroes are inseparable from and actually form a sense of national identity. They give the population a sense of purpose, a cause based on the universal causes. The state searched desperately for heroes. Naturally, the personality cult of Mao and his fellow Part leaders become natural heroes - they embodied the ideals and causes of the nation - but were ultimately unrelatable to the everyday struggles and routines of common people.

China found this hero in Leifeng - an army private raised by a Communist Party orphanage. Chairman Mao started a national campaign after his death to recognize Leifeng as the greatest national hero. Using staged photographs and a fake diary, the media/state claimed that he worked selflessly, lived modestly, defended the Chinese people, and served his national government. Chinese today still recognize Leifeng as the pinnacle embodiment of altruism and patriotism. His death, caused by being hit by an object from an army truck collision, occurred during service, and is thus seen as a national hero for sacrificing his life in service for the nation - making sacrifice for the good.

Warrior Bush and Rumstud

2010-05-04T16:12:00.003-11:00

A montage of the iconic images of George W. Bush in his role of America's heroic leader.

Thanksgiving at Baghdad Intl Airport

Bush and firefighter Bob Beckwith on ruins of Ground Zero (referenced by Faludi)

President Bush's visit to the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003 to announce "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq saw the President become hero/soldier

Bush walking on deck of carrier as if pilot officer

Bush in jumpsuit alongside "fellow" fighter pilots

Bush posing with flight-deck crew

Bush in New Orleans after Katrina not only posed with firefighters and relief workers, but seemed to want to get down and dirty with them in the rescue efforts.

Bush rolls up his sleeves, "getting to work" with firefighters

Bush with National Guard holding chainsaw

Bush in New Orleans post-Katrina on April 27, 2006 repairing homes during National Volunteer Week

Images of President Bush at home on his Crawford, Texas ranch become supplemental to his masculine heroic image. Blogs such as "Manly's Republic" use this to align Bush and Reagan as opposites of more, what one reader called, "metrosexual" political leaders.

Below is a magazine cover I stumbled across that's highly relevant to Susan Faludi's "Cowboys of Yesterday". Title: "Love After 9/11" Enjoy.

Being a man in Amenica

2010-05-02T17:02:00.002-11:00

What is a man, other than a human with a male physique? Our culture, supported by our innate need for ideals, created an ideal of manhood by selecting goals in every category (fashion, activities, speech, and emotions) that are to be pursued only by men. The idea of “being” a man is therefore defined by the degree to which a male can pursue and identify with these “man-like” ideals.

This ideal of manhood is disconnected from the reality of “being” a man, since each individual man has a wide range of lifestyles, interests, identities, many of which are dissimilar from the goals identified by manhood.

Being a man in a highly physical American consumer culture relates as much to the consumption of ideas, products and identities as much as gender roles at various stages of life. We will look at this consumption aspect first.

Media Consumption

Generations obsessed over Indiana Jones

The media consumption in line with solid manhood focuses around three genres: action/adventure, comedy, and thriller/horror. While American men openly enjoy two quick blinks of romance buried in an action show/movie/book/comic/song, romance is viewed as excessively feminine by American culture, which opposes the idea of manhood. Comedy is masculine (note clips shown in film trailers) if it arrives at the expense of another’s manhood and honor (which supports one’s own ego).

Activities

Sports, violence (not that they are mutually exclusive) form the base for all activities that verify manhood. I recall a poll of American high-school students that revealed most men and less than half of women view sports as a competition, while most women and few men viewed as mainly about exercise or fun. An online Newsweek feature said:

“War has been, for almost all peoples and all times, the purest test of manhood…How many men, over how many millennia, have wanted to know how they would do in combat? Would they be brave and fight? Or would they cringe and run?”

The attraction of sport lies in conflict

Physical, individual confrontation tie all games, weapons and guns, all sports, militarism, “bigger-and-better” arms-race consumerism, and betting/gambling together to manhood. What men mean/become to themselves and each other is achieved through tests of manhood – competitions of courage, intimidation and physical strength. This is why women who engage in this are seen as unfeminine – reference lack of female professional sports, Hillary Clinton, Merkel, Thatcher, and female suicide bombers on the cover of the New York Times.

Adolescence/Independence

The young man, independent man, plays a different role and thus is a different man than a married man. His ideal role can be evaluated from present-day television dramas that highlight or exaggerate realities of American culture and lifestyle.

Desperate Housewives follows and develops a range of adolescent and independent male characters; Andrew, Preston and Porter are the most consistent ones,appearing for countless seasons. The young men create a narrative of manhood through their interactions with masculine activities or culture.

Whatit means to be an American woman

2010-04-30T00:26:00.002-11:00

Approaching this question, one must consider the meanings of “American” and “woman”.

Firstly, of the three hundred million Americans, each maintains their own cultural, political, religious, ethnic, and socio-economic differences. These differences are encouraged as part of our free-thinking, indepdendent political culture. Secondly, womanhood is a combination of different roles and stages of life that a woman, as opposed to the only alternative we are considering (man), could and should experience – this is where the idea of womanhood becomes tricky.

A woman can be an adolescent, lover, worker, wife, mother, grandmother…and the list goes on. We define a woman by what label we associate the individual woman with – as humans do to people and objects. As Socrates argued, the degree to which a person is considered “to have virtue” depends on the extent to which the person fulfills their role, or “own work”, “well”. Therefore, given that women (who engage with other people in a social setting) fulfill roles with certain responsibilities and work, our judgment about a woman arises from the degree to which a woman fulfills the work expected by the role the observer perceives her to be fulfilling, which can vary in different instances since a woman can fulfill multiple roles.
The meaning of being an American woman thus arises from the roles that American women fulfill relative to the roles other women fulfill.

Many of us think of Japanese women as having virtues of modesty, filial piety as a daughter, obedience as a wife, and hardworking/devotion as workers. We may view Western European women with a radically different image: fun-loving as a young adult, independent, strong-willed, and late-marrying. All of these ideas about women derive their substance by the culture they’re associated with.

What roles do American women fulfill that are uniquely American, and what does our culture say about our views of women in those roles?

Alexis de Tocqueville answers these questions as an outsider peering in to America from a traditional, aristocratic Europe nearly two centuries ago. He believed American women were radically different during youth and marriage. However, he believed that American women of all social and economic disparities had certain universal characteristics. His observations of American women, independent of those of European women, are applicable and reinforce my perception of the meaning of American womanhood today.

American women as children and adolescents in the family structure fulfill similar roles as their male counterparts - brothers. Girls compete with their brothers and sisters academically, expand socially and revel in social groupings of choice. Girls pursue sports or the arts, with or without parental guidance, almost as freely as men do; however, girls are discouraged from being overly competitive and involved in more aggressive sports, since American culture deems it to detract from femininity.

As the girls and boys approach sexual maturity, both may assume the role of lovers. It is in the fulfillment of this role that the sexes assume different expectations by family and peers: women are encouraged to be passive in relationships, modest in sexual dealings and, and above all, expected to defend their virginity until the pressure to do so fades (usually after emancipation from the family, or parental consent, given the still dominant role of the family in most of America).

To allow for the mutual acknowledgement of such expectations by both daughter and parents, daughters are educated of their expectations through family (modesty), school (abstinence), the media (passivity), and religions that have laid the foundation of American culture (puritan forms of Christianity). The transition from parental guidance to independence is often seamless, as young American women are prepared to enter the world, armed with the knowledge and emotional strength they developed as adolescents.

More generally though, independent women in America are educated (often to the same level of men), to be made more aware of the world’s opportunities and vices, and how to protect themselves from those evils. An independent woman is seen as more competent when she can resist temptations or overpowering forces, and forge successful relationships.

While independence of the mind and body is favored as an independent woman, the roles of women change upon marriage. Through social pressure and education, a woman realizes the need for security and enduring happiness and sees marriage as a method of permanently achieving these goals. She sacrifices the independence of her mind and body for her husband, understanding that men expect this of women in marriage. However, she does not give up her ability to be competent in performing tasks, and is expected to continue the work ethic of her independent life, understanding that men want this in a marriage too.

Thus, a married American woman is strong emotionally and intellectually, but willingly submits to her husband as part of this mutually beneficial social contract.

Consumerism in China - the story of America retold

2010-04-20T11:35:00.022-11:00

Deng Xiaoping's 1979 reforms opened China's frail, Communist, isolated command economy to the invigorating forces of foreign financial and industrial capital. Since then, China has imported a number of things, at an ever increasing rate; one of these new ideas , is consumerism.

Anne Leonard's short documentary, The Story of Stuff, simplified the Work-Watch-Buy cycle of people absorbed in consumer-culture. There was a time, during the era of Mao, when people were citizens, and when people lived lives free from the temptation to buy everything they could, and spend everything they had.

A 1950s-era Chinese family gathers around a meal in the People's Communes; they live a simple life - the only option afforded to them by the economic system of local self-sufficiency and government cupons.

Living simple lives, the Chinese peasants and urban proletariats alike fulfill the stereyotypes of their societal role, armed with the characteristic tools of their work. In these posters, the hard working characters/models do not indulge in physical or material pleasures, but are enticed to live life only as productive members of society, and not consumers that seek to live life lavishly.

Propaganda posters of the times function as the advertising of the Chinese people under communism: they sell to the public ideas about work, education, "society", politics, and the world - ideas formulated by a public relations bureau somewhere in the halls of Chinese government. In the absence of commercial advertising, social advertising as such reflect the ideals of the people, or at least the ideals that the people are meant to have.

The ideals sold to the American public about the meaning of life, through the advertising of products marketed as means to that end goal of life, were very different at the time.

The advertising of the 1950s and 60s united family values developed through American history with material objects. Pastimes, family rituals, sacred family spaces, even the idea of love, were tied to commerical goods. Americans tied happiness and the goals of life to material consumption, and the cycle of Work-Watch-Shop described byLeonard began.

How did consumerism manifest itself in China? Socio-economic forces during the 1960s and 70s pushed China to experiment with currency, free-enterprise, international trade, and private investment. The political event of Mao's death allowed capitalist-leaning ideologues to rise to the highest levels of government, bellowing calls for social and economic reform.

Today, China's urban youth and middle-aged population save less, and consume more of every dollar they recieve. Chinese youth splurge on electronics, fashion, entertainment - none of which are exclusive to the younger generation.

Since incomes of younger Chinese are not neccesarily higher than average, and their exposure to material goods is not greater than any other urbanite, there has to be deeper cultural forces at work changing the younger generation.

Simple economic reform does not explain change in attitudes toward consumption. However, economic reform has allowed an influx of Western-versions of the corporation, media, and advertising - all of which are the spokes holding together the spiral of consumption in the West.

Women and the World

2010-04-16T09:11:00.012-11:00

The day after Andover was out for winter term, I was in Manhattan with my mother who had flown in from Beijing. We both checked into the hotel and rushed to get ready for the three day "Women in the World" conference my mother was attending.

The star-studded guest speakers line up was jaw-dropping. I was looking forward to sitting before and asking questions of Hillary Clinton, Meryl Streep, Queen Rania, Christine Amanpour, Katie Couric, Campbell Brown, Diane Sawyer, and Juju Chang, and some other female business, media and political/feminist leaders.

The conference was held in a fancy midtown hotel decorated with surveillance and security equipment, spotted with Secret Service lurking near curtains and doors. The press lined up outside the hotel as the speakers arrived for the dinner. I sat at a table of complete strangers, far to the side of the room away from the celebrities in the middle, that turned out to be filled with the most interesting of guests (one of which was the best-selling author of one of my favorite controversial non-fiction Becoming Madame Mao and another that was a 98' Andover alumnae).

At that evening's three course dinner decorated with a lavish butterfly theme and bright orange (to blatantly advertise the sponsor's new laptops) with hundreds of people (mainly women in their 50s), the dinner enjoyed an inspiring speech and toast by Melanne Verveer - the U.S. Ambassador-at-large on Global Women's Issues. Here, she said (to quote loosely): "The 19th century was defined by the fight against slavery. The 20th was defined by the struggle for civil rights. And the 2st century will be defined by the quest for women's rights." This was a point later paraphrased by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her speech. Coming from two of the major foriegn-policy gurus of the United States, the radical role they saw women's rights playing in the future discussion of international relations and major issues was none other than an astounding level of foresight and confidence in this era's possibilities for unlocking women's rights and the potential of women.

Both Clinton and Verveer spoke that night

How women viewed the world, and how women participated in shaping the world, has never been an important question in international relations until more recent decades. In modern international relations discussion (which I am studying now), feminism is placed alongside the great schools of thought i.e. realism, liberalism, marxism, constructivism as an explanation of historical and current international trends, as well as being a valid direction for future foreign policy.

The school of thought called 'feminism' is based on the idea that gender-inequality, gender-conflicts and male dominance are fundamentals in understanding the functions of nations and peoples. This school seeks to create a new world order where inequalities between genders are eliminated, and equality is domestically and internationally enforced. They believe that violations of women's rights, such as sexual slavery, genital mutilation, honor killings, denial of access to education, legal and social acceptance of abuse against women, should be on par with issues such as censorship, liberalizing trade, nuclear nonproliferation, and others of environmental concern, etc.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/15/women-in-the-world-storie_n_498842.html%0A

http://www.undispatch.com/women-world-live-stream%0A

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-03-18chinas-five-most-powerful-women/%3Fcid%3Dtopic%3Amainpromo3%0Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailybeast.comnewsmaker%2Fwomen-in-the-world%2F%0A

http:/content.usatoday.com/communities/kindness/post/2010/03%2Ftina-brown-women-in-the-world-summit-promotes-economic-empowerment-of-women-worldwide%2F1%0A%0A%0A%Pr

Tocqueville's America, Europe, and Morality

2010-04-14T07:20:00.011-11:00

Alexis de Tocqueville records the emotions, actions, and organization of America in the first half of the 19th century. He analyzes American family and gender roles, and contrasts what he finds to his understanding of generalized European familial and gender trends.

He distinguishes greatly between the more "aristocratic" social traditions of Europe in the early Victorian Era, and those of the "demcoratic" Americans of the same time period.

He observes the American and European approach to education of young women, and the youth in general. He says:

"In France...education of women commonly receive a reserved, retired, and almost cloistral education, as they did in aristocratic times; and then they are suddenly abandoned, without a guide and without assistance, in the midst of all the irregularities inseparable from democratic society. The Americans are more consistent. They have found out that in a democracy the independence of individuals cannot fail to be very great, youth premature, tastes ill-restrained, customs fleeting, public opinion often unsettled and powerless, paternal authority weak, and marital authority contested.

[Americans] held that the surer way was to teach her the art of combating those passions for herself. As they could not prevent her virtue from being exposed to frequent danger, they determined that she should know how best to defend it; and more reliance was placed on the free vigor of her will than on safeguards.

Thus the vices and dangers of society are early revealed to her; as she sees them clearly, she views them without illusions, and braves them without fear; for she is full of reliance on her own strength, and her reliance seems to be shared by all [Americans] who are about her.

Far from hiding the corruptions of the world from her, they prefer that she should see them at once and train herself to shun them; and they hold it of more importance to protect her conduct than to be over-scrupulous of her innocence. "

The approach taken here by 19th century Americans toward education is to encourage the independence, awareness, rationality, and moral decision making by American women, and American youth since such edcuation by the parents, taking place in the family, would be imposed upon all children.

He charges Europeans with being of a different, or opposite mentality: encouraging the display of "childish timidity or ignorance" and promoting the "innocent and ingenuous grace which usually attends the European woman in the transition from girlhood to youth."

The America he describes here, in contrast to Europe, could not be more different in our day and age. If anything, the roles between Europeans and Americans are reversed concerning the aforementioned individuality and pre-mature adulthood of youth.

The public policies of a people, if approved and enacted through a democratic system, should reflect the morality of the majority - or at least the ideals of a people. Thus, how the law dictates individuals may interact with the "irregularities", "vices and dangers of society" reflects the public's moral attitude toward these vices.

How Europeans today expose their youth to these vices is almost how Americans were described as doing so almost two centuries ago.

How Americans and Europeans choose to expose and prepare our youth for alcohol says much about the reversal of the two sides of the Atlantic.

For example, the United Kingdom has a legal drinking age of 5 years old, and a minimum public drinking age of 16. Almost all European countries have similar laws allowing alcohol consumption by children in the home, and alcohol purchasing ages around 18. The clear disparity in the public-private consumption laws reflects the European family's belief of having the freedom to educate their children about alcohol before becoming an adult.

The use of these freedoms were proved by a European Union special report stated that "nearly all 15-16 year old students have drunk alcohol...on average beginning to drink at 12½ years of age". Most of this consumption occurs either in their own home or another's home, and was the same for girls, the report said. The report said drinking in restaurants and bars (with parents) was also common.

All states ban the purchase and consumption of alcohol in public under the age of 21, with almost all banning private consumption in the home under 18. The federal government of the United States penalizes states that do not honor a 21 drinking age minimum.

As one article put it "with the focus on education about safe drinking instead of restriction...[Europeans] claim many problems are avoided. Though the per capita consumption of alcohol in countries like France, Spain, and Portugal is greater than in the U.S., the rate of alcoholism and alcohol abuse is lower. This comes from education of gradual drinking, which leads to less incidents of young adults getting drunk." Most Americans do not think this way.

A European Union Report says "In comparison to the rest of the world, the countries of Europe are less likely to have a number of [alcohol control] policies, especially those based on market restrictions or taxation." European belief about a wide exposure and recognition of such "temptations" is very similar to Tocqueville's percieved American beliefs.As evidenced by and in addition to the aforementioned quotes, Tocqueville very directly mentions American and European attitudes towards pre-marital sex and the education of women about sex. He says American women understand "the costs of pleasing" and protect their "virtue" with reason and a strong moral consciousness.

To what extent this mentality is fostered by education in the family is questionable since most families do not actively discuss such topics with children. Most sex education takes place through the school, and only to a much lesser extent, the media.

The Guttmacher Institute says the following about U.S. sex education:

In 1999, one in four sex education teachers taught abstinence as the only way to prevent pregnancy and STIs.

On top of the 31% of U.S. school districts that only permit abstinence sex education, the other 51% of school districts have a policy to teach abstinence as the preferred option for teens.

"There is currently no federal program dedicated to supporting comprehensive sex education that teaches young people about both abstinence and contraception". However, "there are three federal programs dedicated to funding restrictive abstinence-only education...the total funding for these programs is $176 million for FY 2006."

Abstinence education has its grounds in moral education - moral education being a very American characteristic and approach to vices, according to Tocqueville. Abstinence education teaches youths about the presence of pre-marital sexual opportunities in reality, and it also teaches these youths to recognize it and avoid it (to "see it at once...to shun them" as Tocqueville says). However, the fact that so many school districts refuse to teach youths how to deal with such opportunities responsibly, using reason reinforced by education, serves to reveal that Americans may no longer be arming their youths with the "reason" and trusting "the free vigor of [their] will" to make decisions.

Europeans seem to be doing a better job at educating children about the subject in public schools. Most countries have mandated sex-education since the 1970s. In France, "schools are expected to provide 30 to 40 hours of sex education, and pass out condoms, to students in grades eight and nine." The government also launched information campaigns on contraception with TV, radio spots and the distribution of five million leaflets on contraception to high school students. For example, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Germany, and Finland offer mandatory comprehensive sex education, with the Dutch system seen as the most successful at lowering teenage pregnancy.

These modern trends may hint at the reversal of stereotypes between Europe and America. Or in fact, just a sign that Europe has changed, while America remains the same, with the difference being discouraging "immoral" activity through law instead of social pressure. Either way, the use of laws and government policy to enforce morality in America can also be seen however, as a reversal of our trust in the independence and individuality of Americans - thus supporting the conclusion that America no longer teaches its youth to act independently and responsibly, but to act as a great power says so, similar to the religious and social pressures that confined Europeans two centuries ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education

http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/doc/alcoholineu_chap9_en.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alcohol_laws_of_the_United_States_by_state
http://www.drinkingandyou.com/site/uk/child.htm

http://www.articlesbase.com/addictions-articles/are-us-college-students-drinking-more-than-their-european-counterparts-886086.html

http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/should-wine-be-a-family-affair/
http://www.youthrights.org/dastatelist.php
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_sexEd2006.html

Pictures:

http://www.inkcinct.com.au/web/cartoons/2007/2007-775-failing-sex-education.jpg

http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/wp-content/photos/wine_dinner.jpg

Self-defense coverage, the media, and America

2010-04-09T00:56:00.014-11:00

The American media twists the narrative of terrorism to produce worthy victims in line with our political ideologies and sympathies: sympathizing with Russian citizens for a terrorist bombing associated with their state's oppression of Chechnya; sympathizing with Iraqis killed in bombings by extremists many Iraqis clandestinely support; the news narratives tend to reflect the majority viewpoint

Does the media create narratives and worthy victims/heroes elsewhere, evolving around a different theme? Do different levels of news see the same story with a different narrative and victim?

The 2nd Amendment political action group Buckeye Firearms certainly believes so. Tim Inwood writes that "sensational stories dealing with the misuse of firearms always seem to make the headlines, and if the body count is high enough they go national. However, we almost never hear of a positive use of a firearm in the defense of the innocent stopping a slaughter."

Is this a common narrative? I looked at several articles dealing with home invasions to see if the latter part of his thesis is true.

At 1:30am, two masked gunmen burst into a Daytona Beach home, pointing a gun at 37-year-old Randal Mckee. Mckee’s 32-year-old roommate pulled out his own gun and fired at the gunmen; both gunmen fled. The gunmen had connections with drugs and that the violent home invasion was not a random act. No report of this incident on the national news.

A local Washington State news station released this interesting report about a senior citizen's self-defense, two weeks after losing his wife. Again, no mention on the national news.

The Orlando Sentinel released this article with this lede: "Charles Johnson is a man of his word. On Oct. 4, 1936, then 19, Johnson promised to love and protect his bride, Berlie Mae." The 91 year old saves his wife when the couple are held at gunpoint in their own home by firing at the gunmen with a hidden pistol under his seat. The situation was portrayed a story of heroics, elderly love, and youthfulness. Did this make the national media? CNN, MSNBC, and CBS archives indicate no.

A Phoenix, Arizona news outlet reported a home invasion where four men were taken captive by gunmen that demanded money from them. One captive found a shotgun, killing a gunman and injuring the other. As far as stories are archived, it was not mention on national news.

A Bakersfield, California elderly man was at home with his wife and grandson. When the 9 year old grandson noticed a burglary, the grandfather confronted the burglar which leveled at rifle at him. Before the burglar could shoot, the grandfather stunned the burglar with a shot, and held him until the police could arrive. This story, covered extensively by The Californian with pictures and quotes, never made any other non-local news outlet.

Atlanta, Georgia college students were having a birthday party when two armed gunmen entered the apartment, separated the men and women at gunpoint, and demanded cash and cell phones. The men checked for ammo to ensure they "had enough" to kill the ten students. As one gunman prepared to rape an armed student's girlfriend, the armed student pulled a shotgun out of his backpack and shot both gunmen, saving ten people's lives. "His intent was to rape and murder us all", a student said. The story was never reported on national media.

Does the national news ever report violent home invasions? All the time. National news outlet MSNBC reported this story where a woman was held a gunpoint in her home as they robbed her house. They also reported this story where a woman was locked in her bathroom as gunmen again robbed her home. Home invasions seem to be newsworthy subjects for national news outlets.

Nationally, murders of defenseless, unarmed civilians always make the national news. The murder of a four member family "shook the suburban community, prompted legislative changes in the state, and attracted the attention of the national media", according to CNN. Sob stories of home invasion murders, involving one death, children, or a gang of gunmen, easily attract national news media attention. National news media frequently post videos of footage of gunmen in the security camera along with 911 calls. The murder of an unarmed woman, barricaded in her home, was reported by CBS. The New York Times also has articles on home invasions, such as this one in Florida, in different parts of the country where a murder occurs. They also reported a home invasion by gunmen that assaulted a woman.

Anywhere one turns, horrifying home-invasions of a helpless victim, murdered by people wielding guns, makes the news. Car chases, arrests, hostage situations that involve no-heroism and no-violence frequently make prime time news. Stories of armed citizens confronting these gunmen and saving the lives of several other people don't.

Media has a responsibility to reveal injustices, especially when people die as a direct or indirect result of a law. In fact, when injustices arise concerning racial or gender discrimination, corporate abuse, and the environment, news media hard news stories and commentators can be highly vocal - whenever the media outlet believes such discussion is inline with its corporate interests. When it comes to armed self-defense, however, things change.

When an Illinois resident man used a handgun, purchased legally years before, in self-defense against a burglar that had stolen his keys the day before, Wilimette village officials pressed charges for violation of the township's local hand gun ban.

An Ohio woman watched helplessly as an armed gunman confronted her husband and shot him. Although owning a concealed carry permit, she had to leave her gun in her parked car due to a law banning handguns in restaurants. The woman testified in an Ohio Congressional hearing which was considering reforming the law. The injustice associated with the law and her story was nowhere to be found on national media. What does this say about the media's priorities and belief about worthy victims and heroes? Reading the reader's comments of the Bakersfield self-defense incident, I noticed that everyone praised and revered the grandfather as a hero for his actions.

If the national news media ever covered self-defense incidents, I would wonder what their narrative toward these gun owners would be. Would it be like the Toledo Tribune's editorial that condemned store-keepers for using guns in defense against armed robbery? Or would the alternative - heroism for those that defend themselves - seem to unattractive to a media conglomerates heavily vested in promoting certain ideologies, and appealing to a politically-homogeneous, loyal viewership.

Is the mainstream media's ignorance toward stories of heroic self-defense (like that of ninth-grader Jeff May during a school massacre) as Tim Inwood claims in his essay, a reflection of a new attitude about self-empowerment in American minds, which Nietzsche has called a 'slave-mentality'? A sign of changing perceptions in America? Such a narrative begs a reconsideration of the idea of America - the idea that America is as a land and home of the free and brave.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7195
http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/2193548/
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=402271
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7195
http://www.king5.com/news/local/One-man-shot-during-possible-home-burglary-in-Carnation-90084097.html
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html

Housewives and The Desperate Housewives

2010-04-07T06:57:00.004-11:00

"Ah, yes: Wisteria Lane", the narrator would say. "The most charming of neighborhoods; the most flawless of characters; the most perfect of families; the most ideal of lifestyles." Oh, but beneath this facade, brews unhappiness, envy, and desire -petty drama and pointless conflicts of grave, unintended consequences.

The show begins with the suicide of an unhappy housewife. And every following episode of the show is a dramatized, comic social commentary of the archetypal, seemingly perfect, American family and way of life.
Let's start with Bree Van de Kamp - the stereotypical White, conservative housewife in the most traditional, suburban sense. Writers portray her as a super-housewife: cooking and baking gourmet dishes and pies, obsessively-compulsively neat and organized, materially caring for her husband and son.

She is and continues to be a stoic and depressed housewives like many claimed to have been by the 1960s. She fails to provide sexual care for her husband, and emotional care towards both her husband and son. Her husband, with his "naturally " sexual desires, turns to a prostitute, and leaves the wife. It is portrayed as a failure by Bree to satisfy the bread-winner of the family, and he threatens divorce. It is only after Bree reluctantly sacrifices her perceived rock-solid moral-righteousness and attempts taboo sexual practices with her husband that he returns to their superficial marriage. Sounds like the all too stereotypical marriage as highlighted in The Way We Never Were.

Ah, but there is more in store for Bree. The idea of Bree's all-American family continues to be challenged. One thing no one expects from a 1950s sitcom family is for a son or daughter to be sexually active and/or gay. The son and daughter, both highly promiscuous, intentionally flaunt their sexuality before Bree. Bree handles the situation badly and eventually abandons both her children. Her liquor in the linen closet into alcoholism when faced with the realities of domestic conflicts. While the drama is naturally exaggerated by Hollywood, the show's great themes about the realities corrupting the American housewife and family, permeate throughout the show.

Bree again challenges the traditional role of housewife when she becomes a successful caterer, cooking phenomenon, and a female icon; a Martha Stewart of sorts. She advocates tradition, female domesticity, and the return to "old-fashioned values". However, her work alienates her from friends and new husband Orson who has experienced a reversal of gender roles. He becomes enraged by frequently returning home to eat takeaways alone, and envious of his wife's success. After losing his job, Orson is so ashamed at his diminished role in the marriage that he fakes going to the office everyday to save face. (start video at 1:30) Orson later becomes evil when he successfully forces Bree to serve him "as a wife should", threatening her with blackmail if she focuses too much on her career.

Lynette Scavo, a housewife in her 40s with four children, has a load on her hands. She faces similar problems when she becomes the boss of her husband Tom and has to fire him. The husband, confused by his reversal of gender roles, starts a rampage of projects. Lynette calls it a mid-life-crisis. He starts a Pizzeria, band, working on an old car, and gets bored with taking care of the kids. The wife is thus put in nontraditional roles: being the bread-winner and standing up against her husband's desires/recklessness.

Always too exhausted after work, Lynette does not sexually cater to Tom after work. Tom frequently ventures out, and Lynette, after spying on him, is convinced he is cheating on her. So, Lynette is forced to start role-playing and cater to his fetishes in order to save the marriage. Lynette's worsening exhaustion means she longer can continue fulfilling the role of the housewife and breadwinner.

Lynette hides being pregnant from her boss out of fear of being fired and leaving her family without any income. She is discovered and fired, and confronts the difficult "reality" that a housewife with children can never be the breadwinner.

The former model, Gabriela Solis, has a nervous breakdown as she loses her beauty, sex appeal, and glamor after marriage. Susan Myer's failed marriages frequently leads to nostalgia and regret. The deeper one delves into these suburban characters, the more these hidden conflicts come to light.

Every character in the show plays their part in challenging and fulfilling the stereotypes of the traditional, suburban American family. The great theme of the show seems to be that housewives are unhappy with the traditional role of domestic servitude, but will always be unable to escape the role and the responsibilities that come with it.

Sitcoms and Moral Education

2010-04-02T00:16:00.009-11:00

Oh, the memories from back home: sitting on sofas with the family, eyes peeled to the television, eyes tearing up from laughter.

Whether in black and white or Technicolor, the shows from my father's childhood are still funny today - hilarious in fact.
Oh, classic shows like...
I Love Lucy
Hogan's Heroes
Gilligan's Island
The Andy Griffith Show
The Beverly Hillbillies
My Three Sons
Michale's Navy
F-Troop
The Waltons
The Adams Family
The Brandy Bunch (even though that was a little later)
Red Skelton
Gunsmoke
Green Acres and its sibling
Petticoat Junction

These classic shows posses something that TV lacks today: family suitability. The humor, the lessons, the themes, are always good-natured and worthy of being respected. In every one of these shows, courtesy, decency, humility, and piety are always encouraged by the parental figures in the show. In Andy Griffith, childhood lessons about envy, diligence, honesty are consistently taught by Andy the father or Aunt Bee the caretaker to the more childish characters in an episode: Opie (Andy's son) and Barney Fife (Andy's Deputy). One episode stands out in my mind as an example of the moral education championed by these early shows.

"If we don't teach children to live in society today, what's going to happen to them when they grow up" justifies the moral education that permeates throughout this episode. 'Opie and the Spoiled Kid' served to teach hard work, respect for the law, respect for parents, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, while discouraging greed, dishonesty, and materialism.

Unlike the classic animated Disney movies of the 1990s, the audience of this show is not mainly comprised of children - but adults. The role cast by the delinquent boy's father, with his failure to educate his son, serves to impose upon adults a responsibility to educate and guide children or other people on a more "moral" path. The nature of the audience, combined with

The fact that this episode, of the dozens of Andy Griffith episodes, sticks in my mind most, I think is testament to the power of a fable when it becomes the dominant plot of a show like this.

I also remember an episode from Petticoat Junction, where two young men staying at the main characters' Bed&Breakfast Hotel try to rob a train. The heist fails when the safe is empty, and the family resumes normal life, ignoring the robbers trying to rob their house while holding the family at gunpoint. The episode concludes with a scene where the family, all gathered around the table at dinnertime, defends these "harmless, good-natured boys" from the sherriff. The family forgives them of their crimes, and the boys acknowledge their crime and respect the family for their forgivness, ending the episode on a note of "happily ever after".

It seems that everywhere one looks in these shows, moral education permeates. The main plots of episodes - where vengeful businessmen lose their job, German Commodants give in to mercy, or weird-looking Adams children stand up to bullying - defined and encouraged morality for an entire generation of American audiences.

I remember my father once rhetorically asked us: "aren't these shows different than what we see on TV today?" to which he answered "[the older shows] don't make us look at what's wrong with a shrug of acceptance. They make us see them as something that shouldn't happen and ought to be corrected." Such a generalization by nature does not apply to every show, but does highlight an important truth about the contrast between the purpose of these skits. Like the difference between a fable and non-fiction, the contrast lies between what should be, and what is. It provides a compass for action in fields beyond gender and family roles: our role as human beings in our corresponding communities.

Is it more that our communities have changed? ...that substance and human abuse, theft, and dishonesty are more prevalent? I would think not. But what has changed is the way in which humans visualize these elements: as inescapable elements of human nature and human life.

Death Threats and Vandalism

2010-03-31T00:12:00.015-11:00

The story immediately following the passage of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment to the Health Care Bill HR-3962, and the passage of the entire Bill itself on March 21, 2010, had an odd set of heroes and villains.

The story: death threats and vandalism directed toward congressional representatives that voted for HR-3962.

Many different news sources have covered the story, with much information and many narratives that overlap. But I discovered some of the most interesting narratives and connections at work in the following pieces.

The story about death threats began running in the news as part of the larger story of Rep. Robert Stupak's Health Bill compromise. The Ammedment was highly controversial, and aroused deeply rooted anger in some Americans. The CBS narrative at 1:45 in the video describes public telephone calls to Stupak as "death threats from pro-life callers": the CBS examples were in no way indications of threats to kill or harm Stupak, but insults and ill-wishes toward him.
The story frames these "threats" as words of pro-life callers; directly laying responsibility for these "threats" on the heads of anti-abortion conservatives - portraying them as the villains in the story.
The CBS report identifies other "victims" of this anger/violence: Rep. Louise Slaughter, who recieved a phone call describing an ambiguous killing of HR-3962 Yea voters' children, and Rep. Gabriel Giffords. The report sympathizes with the victims by showing overwhelming images of the destruction to Gifford's office, alongside her portrait, and displaying her statement of plight.

The villains of the story, continue to be identified. The report allows Democrats take on the role of the untarnished, eligible to point fingers. The report says that "Democrats accuse the GOP colleagues of inciting such acts with inflammatory rhetoric". The rest of the report is dedicated to supporting that claim.

A Republican's shouting of insult "baby-killer" toward Stupak during debate is used by CBS as an example of why Republicans are responsible for threats against Stupak and his colleagues, by a public. While it does reveal anger by pro-lifers, it does not prove inciting violence in the public. The report implies that this Republican is responsible for violence/has committed a grave sin by saying that "he was far from contrite". Also, the report selects a line from his campaign web ad of the Texas representative who made the remark; The selection of "I will never quit speaking on behalf of the unborn" strategically ties pro-lifers and conservatives to the offensives committed by those hating Stupak.

The report then vilifies Tea Party activists - already frequent targets of media news outlets and commentators. Through a website, two Virginia activists encouraged others to "drop by" the house of Democratic Congressman Perriello to protest. The tone of the announcer at this point is mildly sinister, implying that these activists used these words negatively - to allude to violence. The CBS report then described the activists' encouragement with the headline: "congressional threats". These activists are then portrayed to be responsible for an act of vandalism against a Democrat - a severed barbecue gas line at the house.

The report then targets Sarah Palin as an inciter of violence, with Palin's "violent words and imagery". Her tweet metaphor "don't retreat, instead reload" is cited as an example of her inciting violence. This portrayal is a stretch as conflict imagery is almost universal in politics: "kill the bill", "the fight on Capitol Hill", "the speaker fires back", "White House prepares a media offensive", "war on terror", "battle for Health Care" etc. The assumption that these metaphors, because they are used by Sarah Palin and thus they must be violent, is a stretch intended to produce a narrative blaming conservatives for the "threats" and "violence" against these victims.

Seamlessly following the report about the "threats", the narrator highlights Congressional Republican's attempts to derail the Health Care Bill - tying in these unacceptable threats upon Democrats with Congressional Republican's legislative ammendments - this creates bias by association, portraying Republicans in the Senate as being similar to the perpetrators of intimidation and vandalism. The reporter and anchor discussed the procedure of the heath care bill and the vote, lumping in the persistent anti-conservative narrative with the coverage of HR3962 in Congress. The fact that these threats are not a story in themselves, but a part of the Health Bill's story, indicates a villification of all forces aligned against HR3962.

The narrative was designed to portray conservatives and their Republican representatives are responsible for the violence - combining responsibility for committing the attacks together with responsibility for "inciting" such violence. At the same time, the report created archetypes of victims, while using our innate sympathy for victims in a story to elevate Democrats to a position, supported by the framing of the story, where they can point fingers.

On The Side:
To contrast the previos report, a brief CBS report, about half way through, describes the attacks as bi-partisan, and directed against members of both parties, and voices the argument that Democrats are responsible for inciting violence.

A Fox News news article reported the physical intimidation against Congressman as well, supporting Rep. Eric Cantor's argument that Democrats are somewhat responsible for such violence: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/25/rep-cantors-richmond-campaign-office-shot-overnight/

Disneyland is Too Far

2010-03-06T08:21:00.010-11:00

In class, we discussed the Disney Corporation’s desperate and successful attempts to secure its effectively indefinite copyrights through legal lobbying. While such legal protection may exist in the United States, enforcement of such copyrights elsewhere, poses a problem.

Welcome to Disneyland in the land of pirated, fake and bootlegged– where international copyright law is all that’s left of western culture not already imported.

Everytime driving to my grandmother’s house in Beijing, I would see the elegant spires of China’s own Disneyland in ShiJingShan District poking above the urban landscape. Complete with rides, fake Disney characters, and the red banner “Disneyland is too far away, come to ShiJingShan amusement park!” draped over the park entrance.
The park was opened in 1986, just seven years after the end of Communist isolation, being run exclusively by the local ShiJingShan District Government – a division of the Beijing Municipal Government.
The very design of the park is a spin-off of Disney’s trademark Sleeping Beauty Castle. Its characters, either employees dressed in suits or statues on the premises, include a slightly-altered version of most Disney characters, Dreamworks’ Shrek, Hello Kitty, Doraemon, and Bugs Bunny. The park also includes its own version of Disney World’s golf-ball-like Spaceship Earth Building.

The president of the park alleges that the park's characters are not related to Disney's, but are either original creations or based off of the Grimm's fairy tales, according to a Japanese news interview. The park president also said in a Chinese interview that a Minnie-mouse look alike, was actually "a big eared cat".

Visiting amusement parks across China, in Qingdao, North Beijing, Hunan, Dalian, I've seen Disney spin-offs decorate park-rides and posters, and never thought twice about them. The birth of Disney in China came hand-in-hand with the influx of Western culture, which today dominates the urban streets and minds of China.

The iPod culture, the McDonald culture, Hollywood culture, permeates urban Chinese society deeper than traditional arts and literature. When Chinese seek to participate in that culture, they often lack the financial and logistical means to do so: Chinese families msut have the money and good fortune of winning a visa to a Disneyland host-country; they must travel to Hong Kong to buy non-pirated movies imported from American record/movie companies; they have to spend their entire discretionary income to buy a Prada bag - impossible situations for increasingly globalization-seeking middle-class Chinese.

According the Hong Kong Standard, “A US congressional panel says China's own data suggests [pirated] goods account for 15 to 20 percent of goods made in the country.” This news comes in tandem with US diplomatic efforts to reign in Chinese copyright abuses - economically, is it possible?

That statistic and the omnipresence of counterfeiting activities, could be verified by anyone who has lived in China - piracy becomes a part of life. In Beijing, I have spent mornings at fairgrounds strewn with Hello Kitty spin-offs, followed by shopping for fake foreign-brand clothes in the afternoon, and dinner at a McDonalds knock-off, going home to watch a DVD of Transformers before it has even left theaters in America.

When the real North Face or Billabong products are nowhere to be found, their counterfeit counterparts hang on bazzar stalls lining Beijing’s streets, always selling for only a few dollars. Tour-group buses fill streetparking along these bazzars, as they unload bargain-eyed Europeans into these commercial havens for the rich and the poor. Local Chinese teens parade these shops wearing American Eagle and Hollister with iPod earphones dangling from their ears, walking alongside me and my Western friends who look no different; piracy and copyright violation mean so much more than cheap spin-offs: because of the close relationship of branding and culture, they give millions of uncertain, newly emerging Chinese the ability to forge a new identity and particpate in a new post-communism culture, even if it may be one just more like ours.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/233002/beijings_copycat_disneyland_park_sparks.html
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=20&art_id=41990&sid=13078355&con_type=1&d_str=20070411
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/story?id=3140039&page=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Shijingshan_Amusement_Park
http://www.japanprobe.com/2007/05/02/disneyland-in-china/

Private News as Public Propoganda

2010-02-27T23:16:00.001-11:00

On almost all occasions, the Chinese response to controversial international situations is relayed through private media outlets, since these outlets rely heavily on second-hand State-Media released articles. Relying on White House press releases or C-Span reports does not destroy the credibility of a hard news story, but can often strengthen it with foriegn policy statements or information. In China, the propaganda model extends beyond the use of state-affiliated experts: entire articles on controversial isues are drafter by the state, and these articles are used not just to express the interest of corporations or governments, but openly make demands, send out warnings, generate public support, and strengthen national resolve - which effectively suppresses opposition to state policy.

Over past months, a drama has unfolded in the international scene. China historically has been fiercly opposed to a Taiwanese declaration of indepdence from China. When the U.S. sold military technology to Taiwan for Taiwanese national defence, mainly to defend itself from Chinese attack, China lashed out with threats and demands - not only its government, but its media.

An article displayed on Sina News yesterday was titled “New York Times: America sells new F-16s to Taiwan, Sino-American relations trapped in new difficult period”.

Firstly, the new article was released by Chinese propaganda website Taiwan Net, which creates the illusion of being from Taiwan. Secondly, the Chinese government heavily monitors Sina News to enforce traditional “self-censoring”, as Sina.com is the most widely viewed online and influential infotainment portal in China. Thirdly, the actual New York Times headline reads “U.S. Approval of Taiwan Arms Sales Angers China”, not mentioning anything about a “trap” or proactive U.S. state involvement.

Former Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian inspects a Bush F-16 sale to Taiwan.

The content of the article, presented as a hard news story, is more shocking, revealing the extent to which the government’s words are fed into the media.
The subhead, reads: America will soon pay the price for selling fighters to Taiwan. I would consider this quite to be a substantial warning, and not one from a Taiwan Net staff writer.

The lede uses the narrative, “In the face of abnormally extreme condemnation of China”, followed by the news agency’s paraphrase of a Chinese military spokesperson’s press release “requesting America to speak solemnly and proceed cautiously… to avoid damaging the development of peace”.

Now that the tone has been set, the next sentence unleashes the Chinese government’s official press release in the guise of an article’s narrative: “China has long made it clear that it/we will halt Sino-American military exchanges and embargo US enterprises selling to Taiwan”.

The next line says that “Chinese officials and the media offered intense resistance…with the threat of selling US bonds as revenge being proposed”. The media, a collection of TV, radio, and internet content providers, should not be a body that itself resists foreign policy actions, let alone be proudly acknowledging its own resistance, if the media was not merely an arm of government public relations and press-release offices. The next line declares that, citing a Carter-era Act, “China has sovereignty over Taiwan” and that “China can use military force to prevent official separation”. The next line justifies the Chinese government’s opposition to arms sales, followed by a proverb describing the American role in the situation: “the maker of the problem must be involved in the solution”, implying that the US must stop the arms sale.

The following paragraphs ramble on about an opinion discussing how the sale is a “tempest” in bilateral relations, and how a professor at an obscure Hong Kong University said that American leaders need to heed rising nationalistic confidence of the Chinese people – a clear subtle propagandistic attempt at motivating Chinese readers to align this issue with national pride and strengthen the support of the government’s resistance against America.
This article does not follow the upside-down pyramid format of information presentation, like that of the New York Times article. It merely builds a case justifying Chinese opposition to the US sale, spending only the lede discussing the actual sale. The news article spends most paragraphs broadcasting Chinese government threats and responses to U.S. action, as if the piece was an argumentative essay written by the Premier himself - clearly, the propoganda model at work in a private media outlet.

Sina Article

Backstory

2010-02-27T14:47:00.008-11:00

Yesterday, continuing my routine of watching news videos on CNN, I ran across two different videos, reporting the "behind-the-scenes" of two different stories in radically different situations. While watching situational reporting, I would often wonder how the reporters live and work in such conditions; in tough environmental, social, or wartime conditions, the life of the storymakers in the context of that story can be more interesting and an integral part of that story itself.

We often take for granted the great coverage of the extreme winter weather that has flooded our TV and computer screens in past months; behind the coverage is a team of reporters, placing themselves in the chaos of a storm so they can both show and tell the story. Here is CNN's Reynolds Wolf showing you the workings of a weatherman and his crew beyond the lens.

So often the drama of the story is lost in the reporting, but here Mary Rogers drops you on the front lines where no telecaster's voice interrupts the reality of the situation, taking you where real photographers venture to capture the footage that normally blinks for mere seconds behind an anchor's report. These reporters live in these battles with the soldiers, and endure the soldier's life between conflict.
2:35 into the video, CNN reporter Atia Abawi and camerawoman Mary Rogers give a glimpse into life as an embedded correspondent in Afghanistan, presented by Michael Holmes on CNN's backstory.

This is not so much a blog post as a minor ephiphany about where all the media that I view so often actually comes from: that outside of newsroom discussions or film sets, this is the only 'where and how' the media content of the real world reaches audiences; that on-set journalism where 'you see for yourself' is all that tethers all of us to the reality of any situation in a media landscape saturated with artificial and abstracted reality.

VW does it again.

2010-02-21T18:59:00.004-11:00

The "Sweet Air" TV advertisement by Volkswagen that further emphasizes the brand's connection to the driver - another feel-good addition to Volkswagen's great people/driver-oriented marketing campaign of the 90s.

"When you get into a Volkswagen, it gets into you" - classic

(+) and (-) Branding

2010-02-16T18:31:00.018-11:00

The Mac vs. PC, and AT&T vs. Verizon advertisements are textbook examples of negative branding campaigns in the commercial markets. Companies dueling it out, to beat down the opponent, hoping to rise out of war's ashes stronger.

Politicians, like products, are being sold to a voting political consumers; the advertisements try to promote a party's or candidate's own political product, or destroy the others'. Advertising has become increasingly focused on promoting a brand image or brand idea, rather than a product's specific quality. Like commercial brand-marketing, political brand-imaging such as Obama's "change" brand, is an extremely influencial weapon to influence public opinion; even to this day in the minds of most Americans, the word "change" still forms an immediate mental connection with the Obama brand.

Since 2008, anti-Barack Obama and Sarah Palin marketing schemes have become prime examples of negative branding in the political sphere, launched by those intending to emerge stronger or aligned with the political battle of the presidential campaigns.

Barack Obama

John McCain's television commericial advertising against opponent Barack Obama focused primarily on a single theme: bad policy judgement and inexperience means that he is not ready to lead, that the Obama-brand is a risky one.

This John McCain campaign advertisement questions Obama's judgement about the Iranian nuclear and military threat, which the video claims Obama to be underestimating. The example of his percieved judgement about Iran comes to the conlcusion that Obama is "dangerously unprepared to be president".

The following three advertisements continue to market the Obama as "risk". These videos reinforce the Obama "risk" brand image by reinforcing the idea that he is 'not ready to lead'.
The McCain TV ad 'Mum' discusses Obama's lack of leadership in the Senate, and portraying an Obama presidency as "a risk your family can't afford".

'Painful' disparages Obama's economic policy record and "promises", ending with the line "not ready to lead" that McCain hopes will reinforce the "risky" image of the Obama-brand.

The following video questions Obama's judgment concerning the use of our military, claiming that his policy decisions are "risking lives", reinforcing the idea that Obama is "not ready to lead".

John McCain

A brand-image that Obama, through similar TV-advertising, pushed upon McCain is that of "the same" - the idea that McCain continues the politics of the last eight years: that the McCain brand = Bush.

Obama's TV ad 'Original' questions the validity of the a McCain brand-image “Maverick” by tying McCain’s policies with that of Bush, beginning with his voting record, perceived corporatism, and ending with a picture of McCain alongside Bush. The ad is effective at introducing a sub-idea about corporate-favoritism, while reinforcing the brand image “More of the Same”.

Obama's television advertisement 'Don't Know Much' features quotes of McCain and a song about his percieved lack of knowledge about certain issues. The advertisement subtly links McCain and Bush through their supposed economic incomprehension and ideological similarities, the latter shown through voting record similarities: undermining both Obama's despised predecessor Bush and opponent McCain.

This Obama TV advertisement exposes McCain's actions to oppose federal intervention in the education system, which is portrayed to see contradictory to Obama's philosophy that education is important. More importantly, this Obama marketing campaign says McCain will give money to special interests, tying McCain to Bush, ending with the iconic McCain-Bush photo and the line "we can't afford more of the same".

The Obama marketing campaign effectively promotes both the McCain brand image "Bush" and a Bush image of corruption, thus tying McCain's "Bush" brand to corruption.

Sarah Palin

During the campaign, the media marketed an image about Govenor Sarah Palin, McCain's running mate in 2008, establishing her as "stupid". Comedies by Saturday Night Live, the leftist New York comedy show, played a major role in promoting this brand image.

The skit features Sarah Palin at the first vice-presidential debates evading questions, making awkward comments, and using unsophisticated language. The character of Palin is portrayed as being completely oblivious and primitive.

The next skit presents Sarah Palin in her interview with CBS's Katie Couric, mocking Palin's performance by highlighting and dramatizing instances demonstrating a lack of coherency, evasion of questions, and poor understanding. The effect of this skit in shaping the brand image was so powerful that many Americans today still believe that the real Palin said the quote from this skit: "I can see Russia from my house".

The Weekend Update comedy part of SNL enforces the Palin image of stupidity by claiming that she is unable to use punctuation.

Obama's TV ad against McCain and Palin, titled 'His Choice', is built entirely on the left marketed Palin image of stupidity. Asserting that John McCain will substitute his supposed lack of understanding about economics with Palin, the advertisement makes an effective sarcastic satire of the weakness of the McCain-Palin ticket that only makes sense if the audience was affected by the "stupid"-branded marketing campaign against Palin; clearly, by the fact that this advertisement was aired nationally, Obama's campaign believed so. In some ways, this advertisement further promotes the image that Palin has a poor understanding of economics (which may be true), and ensures that the whole Republican ticket, especially Palin, is marketed as unsophisticated/stupid.

Das Auto

2010-02-14T09:02:00.031-11:00

The car. The people's car.
Volkswagen started an American love affair with its bigger-than-life vehicle icons, arguably placing itself deeper into the hearts of Americans than any other automobile brand in the past half century. Ontop of the Volkswagen name, VW's German tagline sums up the brand's essence:
Aus Liebe zum Automobil: For love of the automobile.

VW, with its advertisement agency Doyle Dane Bernbach, set out to market the Volkswagen as the producer of the family car.

Volkswagen was founded during Germany's Nationalist-Socialist revival as the brain child of Adolf Hitler, with the intention of creating a 'People's Car' of Europe. Hitler sought out Ferdinand Porsche, designer of the 'Car for Everybody' projects for two motorcyle manufacturers, agreed to create the "people's car" in 1934. Hitler demanded that the car be able to carry two adults and three children (the ideal German family) at 100 km/h through a savings scheme at 990 Reichsmark, about the price of a small motorcycle. The state sponsored car was promoted with the marketing tagline:

Fünf Mark die Woche musst Du sparen, willst Du im eigenen Wagen fahren — "Save five Marks a week, if you want to drive your own car"

The central volkswagen value of affordability for the average German or European created the image of Volkswagen as a brandname for the common man.

The VW after the war focused on fuel efficiency, reliability, ease of use, cheap repairs and parts. The focus on the Volkwagen's economic efficiency became their general branding image applied on many different models of cars.
This ad from the early 1960s emphasizes the economic efficiency of repairs, while trying to encourage female/family use of the car. Volkswagen tried to reframe its brand in the 1950s as a brand for all people, reaching out to couples and families. While trying to make the high seats of the VW Bus more short-person and skirt friendly, VW marketing pushed the idea that "a VW can and should be loved by women" - specifically in this ad, mothers.

This brand shaping did not stop in the United States; VWs across the world were marketed as the car for for anyone, for everyone. The very first point introduced in this Brazilian Portugese ad essentially says that 'the six doors of the VW bus are used by people of all walks of life in Brasil'; promoting the idea that the VW is a car of all people - the cornerstone of a very succesful pre-1995 brand-marketing direction.
Drivers Wanted
After brand marketing slowdown in the 1980s, Volkswagen began its driver-oriented brand marketing campaign in the 1995, defined by the slogan: Drivers Wanted. Commercial favorites such as Sunday Afternoon and Milky Way pushed this branding image into widespread public view.

An advertising firm executive director, at the Terry O'Malley 2004 lecture series in marketing and advertising, said that the Volkswagen brand is positioned to be thought of as one-of-a-kind, likable, fun to drive, and affordable in this campaign, appealing to qualities driver's seek in a car, embodied completely in this campaign. It is colloquial enough to be include everyone while still edgy enough to imply a VW driver's simple love of driving.

In this 90s ad, without even showing a car, VW portays its brand as being about the individal behind the wheel. The advertisement 'Sunday Afternoon', or 'Da Da Da' tried to elaborate on a Volkswagen's ability to cater to its driver's needs, while building a personal connection between the fun-loving drivers of the VW and potential VW drivers/consumers.

Many of Volkswagen's most loyal followers cite the popular 1999 'Milky Way' or 'Pink Moon' ad as the hook which captured their heart. The commercial's romantic focus on the people of the Volkswagen, being taken by their car on a dream-like journey through the night, reinforced their appeal as a driver oriented brand.

As a testament to the popularity of the advertisement, Volkswagen experienced record sales in 2000. The ad's featured song 'Pink Moon' (1972) by Nick Drake lept to 5th place on Amazon.com's music sales chart; Nick Drake record sales surpassed his 30 year sales total in the one month following the ad's release.

“German Engineered Car” is an age old brand tag used heavily by Mercedes, BMW, and even Audi in their brand image promotion. Neeraj Garg, director of Volkswagen Passenger Cars, said in an interview:
A German engineered car stands for things like innovative technology, safety, stability and sturdiness. Our biggest differentiation is that we make this technology accessible across all our products thereby ensuring it touches our customers in every segment...The Volkswagen brand is an icon and all our products speak for themselves.

Das Auto
An official VW marketing release said:
Volkswagen makes their innovations available to everyone...
Both the [VW] Beetle and Golf brought mobility to millions of people and thereby defined their respective eras...

VW announced their new Das Auto ("the car") marketing campaign in 2008, reiterating Volkswagen's past, present, and future role of being the car of the American people. Part of this campaign involves building upon Volkswagen's marketing of nostalgia.

Volkswagen today attempts to appeal to the baby-boom generation, ageing consumers who grew up in an era defined by the classic Volkswagen Beetle and Bus.

This volkswagen ad not only features the VW Bus from the 1960s, but the same advertising format and style as the old VW advertisements. More importantly, the advertisement seeks to form an emotional connection between the older adult population and the VW brand today.

Marketing the new Beetle as a car with "less flower, more power", Volkswagen says nothing about the product relative to products in today's car market. However, volkswagen does present the new beetle as a continuation of the classic and beloved 1950s beetle, in the same pictoral style as an old Volkswagen ad - branding itself as the producer who continues the legacy of the consumer's past.

The 1952 Gene Kelly Singing in the Rain, complete with the old city backdrop and 50s fasion, modernized with robot dance moves and a new, sleek VW Golf, supports VW's brand image of the "improved original" that baby-boomers once loved.

The face of the whole Das Auto campaign is the 1962 iconic, talking black beetle called Max. Tim Ellis, director of marketing for VW of America, says that "through him, we will reconnect with American consumers and let them know how Volkswagen understands and responds to what the people want.” The idea, reflected in the below online ad, reaffirmed the old VW brand essence of "of the people"; a long-time brand close to the hearts of Americans.

"Find out what else the people want..." says it all: The Das Auto campaign reinforces VW's time old image as the brand of the driver, of the people.
One Volkswagen owner said "people love VW because they can look down their noses at Toyota and Chevrolet owners, knowing they paid about the same and got a real driver’s car."

From pop. culture icons such as Herbie the Love Bug, to the memories of love and rebellion in the "Hippie Van", Volkswagen's brand has been built decade upon decade. VW to all Americans, is of the people, for the driver, by those who fell in love.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Drake
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/features/brand-equity/The-Volkswagen-brand-is-an-icon/articleshow/4961910.cms
http://www.metamagazin.com/mm06/mm06_volkswagen_en.html
http://www.brandchannel.com/view_comments.asp?dc_id=44
http://www.inquisitr.com/27290/wives-and-beatles-never-a-good-combination/
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/volkswagen-launched-das-auto-campaign-ar55062.html
http://crudefutures.typepad.com/crude_futures/2009/05/index.html
http://www.ehow.com/facts_4966661_history-volkswagen-brand.html
http://media.www.brockpress.com/media/storage/paper384/news/2004/03/23/Features/Volkswagen.And.Pop.Culture.Branding-639165.shtml
http://www.aircooledads.com/web%20page/spanish/sw62.6.htm>

Toyota and Bribes?

2010-02-12T03:05:00.003-11:00

Did Toyota steal a federal transportation-safety employee to influence car safety investigations?

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/02/11/am.feyerick.toyota.feds.cnn?hpt=C2

Suicide

2010-02-09T16:40:00.003-11:00

Why does CBS's Lara Logan want to blow her brains out listening to American news?

Shout fests like this on CNN Headline News after a discussion of Sarah Palin's hand scribbles may be one reason why. Somehow, the need to spend airtime discussing celebrity slips and arguing about 'whether you met Reagan or not' is more newsworthy, more important, more relevant to our lives than war, government, and the state of the market.

Journalists covering more important issues have every right to be frustrated with cable networks that feature these news stories or opinion on the air before theirs'.

Andover Advertising

2010-02-06T10:58:00.011-11:00

It's time for the races: Andover student presidential races.
Walls, windows, magazine stands, everything imaginable, become a giant billboard for dozens of loose colorful paper poster ads lumped around and on top of each other, fluttering with every person's passing and door opening, sporting the smiling faces of candidates and their compadres as you walk by.

They are a spectacular display of creativity, wit, and spectacle. Funny, original, and colorful, these advertising clumps make people stop in groups at their feet to read, or even more so, respond to their bright pictures and bold text.

Advertising in American history evolved from an industry strategizing the promotion of a product, to the promotion a brand, to the promotion of an abstract idea associated with a brand. The American advertising landscape is shaped by combinations of all three: there are the ads which highlight product qualities (cost being one of them), and those that do not even feature the product.

What is the Andover market like?
Essentially, candidates are products being ruthlessly marketed to the hearts and minds of a vote-flaunting consumer. In the first round, 18 potential candidate products compete in the Andover market and the 12 most popular products qualify for the next round of market exposure. All candidates are 11th graders appealing to consumers from all four grades.

The ad campaign trying to sell these candidate products must appeal to the most, the best. What is the Andover's presidential advertising landscape?

All ads are presented on Letter or Tabloid size paper. Some use only text, but most use both text and pictures to varying degrees.

Carl Hardin's white posters blast "Vote for Hardin" in bold black text. This is equivalent to advertisements that say "Buy X", merely revealing the existence of a product.

Some posters advertise product qualities and characteristics. Dan Aronov highlighted a specific campaign platform issue of his in each poster, beside a picture of him doing something about the problem.

Mackay and Jackie Lender advertise themselves as being tied into a bigger idea of popularity, but nonetheless, the product itself is still being marketed, not the idea of a Mackay Presidency.

Other posters market the candidate or their platform as a brand image, tied to a greater idea. Cleveland's poster uses a play-on-words and fantastical picture to brand her campaign as a source of hope and possibility.

Jeremy Hutton aligns defines himself as an on-the-move, pro-active, problem-solving, adventurous candidate in his posters, emphasized by the cheesy idioms/catchphrases and outdoor sports pictures. Everything about Jeremy is branded as active.

The advertising landscape at Andover combine the many strategies of media advertising: spreading awareness about a product, highlighting positive characteristics about a product, tying a product to an idea, and promoting an entire, specific brand image surrounding the candidate and potential presidency. Whether conciously aware or not, Andover students think like marketeers: they understand the different methods of influencing/appealing to consumers and can remarket something normal as extraordinary using those methods.

What could be more important than war?

2010-02-02T17:24:00.011-11:00

An Article by the New York Times 'Reporters say networks put wars on backburner' claims that it is harder than ever to get doverage of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on the air in the United States.

The article claims that "coverage of the war in Iraq has been massively scaled back this year...CBS News no longer stations a single full-time correspondent in Iraq, where some 150,000 United States troops are deployed."

Another article said: In January of 2009, Iraq accounted for only 1.25% of news stories in the US. Partly, news organisations are turning their focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. But even so, Afghanistan currently accounts for just 2% of news coverage. The economic crisis, by contrast, accounted for 47% of coverage two weeks ago, according to the most recent Pew report.

Chief foreign correspondent for CBS discusses American reluctance to hear about our troops and mission overseas.

Several months went by in 2008 without the sound of a bombing echoing through Baghdad. Somehow sadly, this trend, reflective of the decreased violent activity in Iraq, is reducing coverage.

A Pew Center Study showed that "the reduction in violence on the ground that began late last year has coincided with a significant decrease in coverage from the war zone as well." Anita McNaught, a correspondent for the Fox News Channel said “The violence itself is not the story anymore." John Hindertaker, writer of the Power Line blog, winner Time Magazine's Blog of the Year, says:
"One wonders, though, whether the change may be due in part to the fact that network executives are more excited about publicizing apparent failure in Iraq than success there."

The only reporting from Iraq in recent months has been about Iraqi elections and American troop redeployment or restructuring. Breaking news headlines of carbombings and suicide attacks have become a thing of the past.

After a peak of news coverage about the surge, with violence fading and Bush leaving, the interventions have become less important to American politics. New events, such as the fiancial meltdown, reccession, and 2008 presidential campaigns, have become more newsworthy for Americans and have displaced war coverage. In the first three months of 2008, coverage of the presidential campaigns was covered 11 times more on national television than the situations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans now have more "important" things to fill their airtime with.

The blogosphere's response to the New York Times article and phenomenon either laments the tragedy or conspiracy of American media corporations. The tragedy or conspiracy is not that they have failed us, intentionally or not. The tragedy is that they conspire to capture as many restless eyeballs for as long as they can. Issue awareness A.D.D. of the American public means that our mission overseas, if not politically important (like during presidential election years), is boring to us.

Media companies do cater to us viewers, but they do have the power to shape what we become excited about.

http://www.journalism.org/node/10365

Social Media

2010-01-31T18:15:00.015-11:00

How has important has online social media become? This great amateur video provides food for thought on this question.

America hypocritical on Google vs China

2010-01-30T21:52:00.002-11:00

News of Google’s threat to abandon ‘google.cn’ because of strict government censorship and interference, and privacy violations, brought Chinese government censorship to the forefront of political issues for a few weeks.

Because of a record of stringent human rights abuses and authoritarian control, China is often targeted as a textbook example of government manipulation of the media used to cover up or censor information that might threaten the stability of the state and society.

Americans and peoples across the world, along with their governments to a lesser degree, became highly vocal about internet freedom, privacy, and general government interference with media: related editorials, blogs, and tweets poured onto front pages and ‘the most popular’ sections of news and other forums.

The stench of mild hypocrisy or ignorance wafts from this outcry; in the name of the same goals of national security and stability, the rest of the world is also expanding its control over everything relating to the internet.

A CNN editorial turned this discussion around. Are America’s internet laws giving China the power to hack our email?

Google put in place “backdoor-access” to email accounts in order to comply with U.S. intercept orders and search warrants on user data. The editorial uses the idea that this feature is what the Chinese hackers exploited to gain access as the basis for its argument.

Western governments are giving themselves Internet surveillance powers, requiring internet “communications system providers to redesign products and services they sell”. The article mentions Sweden, Canada and the UK as examples.

Many are also passing data retention laws, forcing companies to retain information on their customers.
This happened with the phone system in the US when the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act from 1994 required phone companies to help the FBI eavesdrop.

Not only did they eavesdrop, but the whole system was supposedly abused by the federal government when the FBI illegally wiretapped and eavesdropped on Americans 3500 times between 2002 and 2006.
The editorial cites an instance in Greece where more than one hundred cell phones of Greek government officials were wiretapped for a year, including those of the prime minister and the ministers of defense, foreign affairs and justice. Nobody knows who manipulated the system, but we do know that it was Ericsson that created the wiretapping capability for governments that requested it or mandated it.

The experience of Google in China highlights a trend about internet products that Google designs: American companies building China's electronic police state.

The United States Congress debated bill S-773 of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009, introduced on April 1st. It gives the president the power to “"declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation and shutdown of internet traffic”, among other federal steps to intervene in the flow of internet traffic.

The bill was introduced by Democrat Senator Rockefeller, cosponsored by two Democrats from Indiana and Florida, and moderate Republican Olympia Snow from Maine and still in the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

The bill will make the Department of Commerce collect information related on public and private infrastructures deemed critical by the President – information accessible to the department “without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule, or policy restricting such access."

Technology and political blogs and videos have exploded in response to this bill, concerned with virtual martial law and suspension of the First Ammendement. However, somehow, this discussion about security is missing from political conversation. The mere existence of a few lines in this bill, especially those supported by more socially liberal representatives, highlights the shift in political thought about government control of the virtual world – its role in managing the framework of our cosmopolitan civilization, even if benevolently.

Internet control in Western nations is increasing as governments try to catch and stop terrorists, child pornographers and other criminals. As a people that ideologically values freedoms over control and security, we should be wary of delegating control of our expression and privacy to naturally self-enhancing bureaucracy. It is “bad civic hygiene” to build technologies or relinquish freedoms that could someday be used to facilitate a police state, even if it may our own.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/23/schneier.google.hacking/index.html

(R) vs. (D) on Health Care Reform

2010-01-23T23:37:00.010-11:00

The ‘Affordable Health Care for America Act’ created a gaping partisan divide in both houses of Congress. Why? In class, we discussed one reason: the desire of Democrats to see Obama pursue his goals and be successful, and those of Republicans to derail his agenda and presidency.

The second reason for this partisan divide relates to the first reason, but is completely about the party base: the involvement of so many originally partisan issues within the bill. Redistribution, illegal aliens, abortion, federal spending and the deficit, taxation, market intervention, veterans’ care, lifestyle mandates, role of the federal government, are examples of some of the controversial issues within the bill itself or its principles that are dividing congress along party lines. These issues, as pointed out in class, have nothing to do with health care since the bill has made itself much less about actual cost reduction and insurance coverage expansion than about ideology and simply getting something inherently Democratic passed as seen through the methods it seeks to achieve its goals and ongoing media hype: not that the hype is a bad thing.

I agree that these issues may have been over emphasized and made more controversial, in order to derail the bill, but these issues have individually and collectively resonated deeply with the ideologies of each party’s core and have become important issues separate of the Obama presidency.

I will show that the media, appealing to conservative or liberal views on each separate issue, have generated support or resistance to the bill by tying it to these other non-health care related issues.

Taxation

Clips from different media outlets address the health care reform bill on questions of taxation, its impact on the economy, and government spending.

The following video highlights concerns about taxation and the resulting effect of the economy, here discussed specifically with regards to projected impact on Illinois.

Abortion

The question of abortion coverage highlights support and opposition to the bill that, while not entirely divided along party lines, comes from beliefs that were deeply rooted into the Republican base and liberal ideology years before an Obama presidency. The almost unanimous support by Republicans for a controversial amendment proposed by Rep. Stupak in debate, was one reason for party-line divisions.

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Illegal Immigration

President Obama has said that proposed health care subsidies and public option coverage (now dead) would not go to illegal immigrants. As this video discusses, and as mentioned elsewhere by the President, this statement is not entirely true.

Neil Cavuto, host of a FoxNews “Business News Show”, discusses the health care reform bill and illegal aliens.

The party line vote of an ammendement describing provisions to prevent illegals from abusing the system highlights a key political difference between the parties: the belief in the obligation of the US government to financially support all people within its jurisdiction.

This next video is an MSNBC discussion over the responsibility of Americans to provide health care insurance subsidies and coverage to all in the US including illegal immigrants. The response to a question raised by a town hall protester, do we turn away illegals who demand care, again highlights a political division between the two parties.

The question over illegal immigration is a highly partisan issue. The ties between partisan issues of social safety nets and illegals produce even larger divisions within Congress along party lines.

The question over illegal immigration ties into larger questions of principle about obligations of society to support others within it that are somewhat exclusive or alienated. The slide about states’ health spending on illegal immigrants ties in the separate issues of spending and overall cost.

Cost

Something as empirical as costs cannot be easily disputed by either party. However, the view about 'which cost is less worthy' is disputed and has led to a divide between R and D.
This CNN news clip of CNN anchors presenting CBO budget data to the Director of the Executive Office of Health Reform is my case in point. In response to CBO Director Elmendorf’s quote about increases in federal costs, the Health Reform Director mentioned the possible savings for individuals and families, and the possibility savings for the government in the long term. This highlights the partisan divide between the government cost increases emphasized by Republicans and possible personal savings for most Americans advocated by the bill’s Democratic proponents.

The media world is filled with radio chat shows, news clips, speeches, and commentary that support the claim about the different types of cost being a dividing factor in support for the bill.

Individual or Collective Responsibility

An ideological discussion of the role of society to support health care coverage (through the public option and federal insurance subsidies) has divided progressives from libertarians or conservatives, if I may be allowed to generalize here. The divide between individual responsibility and mandated collective responsibility

Fox news shows a clip from a town hall meeting where Senator Cardin (D) discusses collective responsibility in response to a question from meeting attendee Robert Broadus. On the Neil Cavuto Show, Broadus turns the discussion of the health care reform bill into a philosophical debate about the individual and choice, which he believes is threatened by universal health insurance and the health insurance mandate in the bill.

A CNBC show discusses this philosophy, phrased in the context of health care provision (which is what striving to achieve universal health insurance coverage will equate to) being a requirement of the public sector or not.

On the side, the representative from the CATO Institute pointed out Medicare costs and included that monetary cost in the discussion of feasibility of practice. This philisophical question about role of the individual or government to provide for goods has a generally partisan division with progressives being more likely to support government intervention to provide or expand the range of public goods to address a percieved social injustice.

Role of Government

The size and role of the federal government in health care relates to the practical aspect of health care as a right or privilege. The bill is seen by its proponents as a necessary expansion of the government’s obligation to address a perceived social injustice.

Fox news was quick to jump on controversial clauses that would expand the role of government. This segment may be over-the-top, but the response by experts and the channel seems to highlight a valid concern or at least one that Fox believes is valid.

Constitutionality

There have been legal threats to challenge the health care mandates by legal and political groups if the bill is signed into law on the basis that the federal government cannot legislate the purchase of a good under the constitution. Many Republican representatives on the state level have moved to protect individual choice of health insurace due to a percieved threat from the reform bill. These attempts may seek to undermine the bill directly, but true constitutional originalists, which tend to be political conservatives, have raised opposition to the bill solely on these grounds; this ties into the ‘role of government’ idea but with regards to law and not political philosophy.

Misinformation

Yes, we do consider insurance premiums and the cost of Medicare in our debates, but controversy remains over how the bill will actually affect them. I've heard congressmen on C-Span allege that the bill WILL NOT decrease average premiums and does not effectively address the problem with existing government health care programs. Yet I hear another party leader, a day later, announce that it WILL lower household premiums and curb Medicare costs. CBO statistics have been selectively plucked from reports by both Republicans and Democrats to advocate for their ideas. Because of media politicization, we hear what we want to hear, further perpetuating our bias for or against policies in the current bill. Misinformation and data selectivity sends mixed messages to different kinds of Americans, distorting the truth, and futher dividing Americans. Secondly, logical debate about cost, government, and the bill's effects has almost faded from the media; what seems to fire up voters are emotion-tugging stories of American suffering, veterans' care, and Big Brother. Has mass media failed to become a medium for informative and relevant discourse about the bill and the future of the country? Another question for another post, another time.

Talk about 'death panels', 'pulling the plug on grandma', associated with big government and redistribution, have become powerful rhetoric in the debate about the bill. Issues unrelated to insurance premiums, coverage, and Medicare are creating the support and opposition to the bill. The party line division seen in health care reform reflects the greater rift in the American population about these issues.

.

Just a hint of spin

2010-01-18T11:48:00.014-11:00

In this post, I want to discuss the media bias surrounding the hundreds of Tea Party protests across the country in 2009. If I wanted to go in depth, the stories are plentiful, the examples are rich, and the political conclusions are varied; all I will do today is point out examples of bias, and not conclude anything about the news media and the increase in commentary and poor journalism.

As one blog put it: “Like a pair of 13-year-old boys who just learned a dirty word”, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and Marie Cox repeatedly used an offensive oral sex slang term to describe the protesters, using the sexual pun of “teabag” 51 times in 13 minutes. MSNBC’s Rachel Garofalo then called protesters racists and “a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks” as “Keith Olbermann smiled approvingly”.

I recognize that these broadcasters are commentators - they do not have any responsibility to tell the truth, just their opinion, even if it involves verbal sexual obscenity. But by ANY journalistic standard, what is wrong is the use of such terms in hard news reporting – when journalists abandon neutrality and become commentators trying to spin the news.

David Shuster is no commentator, but a daily newscaster for MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews which is “a syndicated weekly news program” according to MSNBC. Here, he offers an opinion on the tax day protests across America in the news program in a video in which he intentionally uses sexual metaphors to discredit the subjects of his news report.

The host of Hardball during interviews blasts this opposition to Obama's policies as a racist movement by gun-toting Americans.

Or how about Anderson Cooper, the respected newscaster from CNN?

Bad journalism? OUTRAGEOUS journalism.

ABC's Dan Harris in a news report reports that the protests were "cheered on by Fox News", "designed", "not a real grassroots phenomenon", and "orchestrated by people fronting for corporate interests". How can a news agency pretend to report the news while effectively only launching political allegations based on opinion? The video continues to undermine the protests by discrediting the protest's cause, using statistics completely unreated to the protests themselves, and using strong, emotional language to create bias.

Much criticism of the biased-coverage of the protest was based around CNN’s poor Susan Roegsen who just happened to let go of any journalistic professional ethics in her interviews with Tea Party protesters in Chicago.

Once good journalism, now gone bad. Roesgen becomes a propoganda arm for her own liberal affiliations by trying to sell the Stimulus during a report, confronting and debating with her news story. Instead of reporting the news, she tries to influence it and ends up becoming the story.

Again, she verbally confronts a protester in the second half of this clip at the same rally.

The fact that she obviously harbors a politically-motivated double standard, by implying that Bush is a satanic Adolf Hitler while defending Obama against criticism, is not important. The issue that should upset any consumer of the news media is journalists abandoning their code of ethics and aggressively trying to undermine her subjects in debates to create a political message. Her bellicose attitude did not stop on air. She continued to debate with demonstrators after the interviews.

As a representative of credible news agency that supposedly honors journalism’s sacred values, she could not be more of a disgrace to herself, to CNN, and to the American news media.

The infiltration of opinion into actual news reporting is what will create the misleading bias and politicization of news so that news no longer becomes truth. We have seen that with some news channels that intentionally blur the line between commentary and journalism. The three arms of news media - news, opinion, advertising - must be completely separate for the truth to be unadultered. Other networks such as ABC, CBS, or Fox are not exempt from this sort of bias. This failure of neutral coverage of any, even slightly, political event reflects the greater failure of news media to function as an agent of empowering citizens in a democracy. Instead, the politicization and dichotomization of news media into liberal and conservative will only breed ignorance, intolerance, and misinformation.

Recognizing that news in China is heavily politicized to create a bias, the dangers of such bias to democracy, even if neutral from government control, should obviously be as dangerous as state-media is to freedom. It would be a sad era in history when the time-tested great American democracy fails only because of its news corporations.

The following clip is not quite related to the tea party movement, but it is relevant to the issue of manipulation of news. Yes, the source is Fox News, but that does not at all detract from the logical argument presented here.

Scott Brown on Youtube

2010-01-18T07:52:00.007-11:00

Scott Brown is gassing the campaign machine with one day left until elections, running ads on Youtube like no other candidate ever has in history, or at least in my experience. I can't go anywhere online without seeing him. I can only imagine how this omnipresence may cause opponents to pull their hair out and refuse to go online. Like a parent nagging you about something after months of constant reminders, this tactic may either turn off voters or do wonders in getting his base aware and fired up for tomorrow.

Coakley's alternative campaign approach - bringing out the big Democratic players (Clinton, Obama) at rallies last week - may just be enough to counterbalance Brown's rampant advertising.

I guess the polls will determine which strategy won.

.

Nobody cared, until the media appeared.

2010-01-17T15:35:00.006-11:00

I’m new to Massachusetts; I’m new to living in America. Massachusetts politics? Huh?

It's a typical weekday: sitting in the library after class, before sports, internet open, trying to catch up on the world that jogged by as I sat in class.

I logged into Facebook today to see Scott Brown’s smiling photo. I browsed Youtube, Fox News, and CNN to see Scott Brown calling on ME to Volunteer Today! Me the unregistered, out-of-state student?

My eyes gleamed gazing at the ad; it was late at night, I felt motivated, daring, adventurous and clicked the ad. Next thing I knew I was whizzing along the virtual highway, pictures and colors forming before my eyes (because dorm internet is slow), straight to a volunteer’s form asking me for my name and email. “We need your help!” it says.

I’m curious about this guy. Does he have anything to do with the open senate seat? I pull up Youtube and, three seconds later, I’m watching him engage in intense debate with his opponents Coakley and Kennedy. His charisma is powerful, his views are well presented, and I search for Scott Brown on google. I read the Wikipedia page that springs before me. He will be the vote to break a Democrat cloture on the health care reform bill? I click the footnote at the bottom of the page, linking me to the Boston Globe senate race site.

From there on forth, through links to articles, pictures, interviews, more debates, advertisements, rebuttal-ads, and video bloggers, I let myself loose on this wild goose chase of information through the virtual landscape in the early morning, becoming as informed about his record, his policy, the issues, his opponents, and the polls as any Massachusetts voter could be. I’m on Twitter and Facebook talking about the senate race; people respond and we debate. I’m up writing a blog and posting videos about Scott Brown. I get an email alert about breaking news: Obama will be speaking with Coakley. I see a picture of Brown with Juliani on Boston Streets. I feel like I’m involved with the campaign, becoming more aware, knowledgeable. The campaign and all its drama is unfolding before me, on a screen, in my dorm room, late at night.

In such a short time, I came to feel like a part of a great story; I realize the tremendous power of links, of videos, of online radio, of online recruiting. Other ordinary people, not just the news or film crews, are involved just like me. I saw a creative advertisement against Brown created by ordinary citizens under name of ‘Democrats united against the Evil Empire’.

An unaffiliated joke attack ad. The quote at the end is great too.

Blogs have poured their energy and focus into the race, ranging from conservative political blogs, The Hope For America, to news and trivia blogs like WizBang.
On Google, the automatic constantly updates Twitter posts about Coakley, presenting a chain of links as hundreds of tweets by Americans fly by as new tweets appear on the screen. Ordinary people are just as fired up about a drama, an election as the candidates themselves, and they too have created a means to express and rally audiences, becoming as great a part of the political process as any.

The political machine, enhanced by the internet, is frightening in its volume and awesome in its power (‘awesome’ in its original meaning). I had never heard of Scott Brown or Coakley until last week, and I had never been in Massachusetts until this summer, let alone thought about it; somehow, today, I know more about the issues and am more involved in a Massachusetts campaign than I have been for any school leadership campaign or club election even though in school I was directly affected and immediately surrounded by the issues, and friends with candidates. The power of the media in spreading a message, inspiring a political base, and rallying support to the most distanced or ignorant of audiences is greater than what most direct human interaction can achieve.

To me, as an American, this empowerment and force in motion, just days before an election, makes me more excited and proud to be part of this democracy than any movement or phenomenon – this represents an indisputably true American spirit.

My experience with Chinese censorship

2010-01-17T06:37:00.013-11:00

Run-ins with censorship and a Sinified propaganda model in China may be worthy of several blog posts, but my encounters with internet and TV censorship are by far the most profound and worthy of today's discussion.

The most obvious form of censorship is when the government blocks a website outright. I remember the years of painful research in tenth and eleventh grade when Wikipedia was blocked, and the days that entertainment and social lives mourned when YouTube and Facebook died to all of us behind the Great Firewall. Self-censorship required for Google, Wikipedia, and Yahoo to remain viewable in China did not really affect the content any of us viewed. Very little other than items we rarely browsed for, such as Tiananmen Massacre, Free Tibet, and Amnesty International, were censored if we used the ‘.com’ and not ‘.cn’ Chinese versions of search engines.

None of theis censorships hit home until my last few months in China when Facebook and Youtube were blocked. Atthat time, there were dozens of unconventional means of viewing a video or Facebook photo: Proxy server websites, downloadable programs, and the uncensored internet connections of my parent’s office or US embassy affiliated school.

Today, my brothers in China are finding it increasingly difficult to find any proxy servers or firewall-bypassing programs that the government hasn’t found and learned to block. BBC, Twitter, and even my iTunes store were blocked in following months. I believe the ridiculous justification given for closing off iTunes and its heavenly gateway to all that is media on earth related to a Free Tibet group posting a free single among the millions of media files available for sale that Chinese do not even use. The intensified constriction of approved media was too little, too late for there to be any profound impact on my life. However, now that I am in the US, chatting on Facebook and downloading on iTunes, I can never imagine crawling back behind the iron curtain of media that is China.

TV censorship had its own impact on my life. Chinese authorities regulate public television media exposure through state-controlled media stations and easily censored satellite TV. I lived in a gated compound populated almost exclusively by wealthy Chinese and foreigners, almost reminiscent of a nice suburban American neighborhood with gleaming lawns, broad driveways, and trampolines in backyards. It was here that we were privileged to receive satellite TV - a luxury granted by the law to only the homes or offices of the wealthy or expatriates of China.

An illegal satellite on a Shanghai apartment.

A company driver, quite close to our family, bought and installed a satellite dish on his balcony on a Thursday in 2008. He enjoyed HBO and Cinemax for the whole weekend before the Police showed up at his front door and ripped the dish from his railings, slapping him with a moderate fine - nothing more than a thousand dollars. The government recognizes the dangers of having an informed, critical, West-envying local population that could someday undermine its authority. Censors on TV, are an effective way to keep that kind of population from developing.

All we received from the satellite were a few English-speaking channels: HBO, CNN, BBC, Discovery, National Geographic, and Star World (where we watch all our TV shows: American Idol, LOST, etc.) on top of all the local or national Chinese state-run channels. Even with a satellite dish run by our compound manager, the whole selection of eight or so channels were lightly censored because they received signals from a government satellite with the purpose of creating a foreigner-friendly network – apparently our American eyes needed to be censored too. Only one villa near my US embassy school, the official residence of US diplomatic families, received the US Armed Forces Network and all the uncensored news and shows that come with it as part of international diplomatic agreements.

It was a lazy Beijing Sunday afternoon in March, and all the news stations were blasting news of the riots in Tibet. CNN was covering the military lockdown, martial law, and riots through a reporter in the nearby province of Sichuan during the media lockdown of Tibet. The reporter, standing in front of a brick home, hears locals yelling at him from behind calling him a liar, he feels a little threatened and says the locals are reacting to news reports of Chinese media lying about the riots. The screen of my TV goes black with only the sound of static to go with it. I flip to BBC, and it too is blacked out. A day later, I go online to CNN.com and see a video of an anchorman reporting CNN being blacked out in China. The last part of this video shows the blacked out screens.

I was a little scared to know that all times in past years when I thought the satellite connection was bad, may actually have been government censors pushing buttons to cut me off from something important. This was censorship in its most visible form.

To put this into perspective, vertical integration of media companies in the US seems like the Great Plains compared to the state-influenced national media in China that practically owns and displaces any provincial or local reporting. In my ten years in China, it seems that all meaningful international coverage for Chinese people comes from the national channel CCTV - both heavily regulated and heavily aligned with government interests.

While I did not watch Obama’s inauguration on a local Chinese channel, I have seen instances on CCTV where speeches and interviews were cut off as such.

After Obama mentioned 'facing down fascism and communism' in his address, the address stops, the translator fades, and the anchor awkwardly calls out to an analyst on standby, stuttering as she asks "what difficulties Obama will face with regards to the US economy?” in her attempt to fill air time. What is most surprising is that she, instead of being suprised at the censorhip cut off, recognizes the censorship and moves to make the censorship more effective by switching topics to take attention off the topics.

A certain level of self-censorship based on a nationally recognized ‘code of appropriate reporting’ is most evident here – it is similar to any unwritten code of professionalism ingrained into any businesses and individual: A respect for authority and to report what is only appropriate. There are consequences for falling out of line with such a code – losing a job or right to broadcast – but there is almost support instead of mere compliance among the media for such reporting modesty. Perhaps they feel responsible to the people for keeping the media appropriate? All media companies are still somewhat privately owned, but the highly effective combination of fear of government and respect for this code seem to maintain high levels of self-censorship within all outlets.

With movies, because the government has some control over their official distribution - to be separated from the widely and cheaply available pirated market – they too can be censored. Politically sensitive movies such as Seven Years in Tibet or 100 Days in Peking will never be found at local cinemas alongside other Hollywood creations. American movies make up more than half of the shows found at cinemas in China, so censorship is taken very serious. The most hilarious and annoying instance of movie censorship I encountered was visiting the cinema to watch Pirates of the Caribbean 3. I had seen the movie previously so I knew the characters and the plot. I also remembered Chow-Yun-Fat’s role in the movie as an Asian Pirate.

Chow Yun Fat in Pirates of the Caribbean

In the middle of a dialogue with Chow Yun Fat, the movie jumps almost ten minutes ahead, completely skipping the rest of his scene. I noticed a few awkward side-glances from people further down in the audience at the huge skip in the plot. Chow is not even portrayed as a Chinese citizen, nor does he say anything slanderous, even slightly, toward Chinese. Apparently to the authorities, it seemed that the notion of a dirty, immoral, law-evading Asian pirate was just too inappropriate for the Chinese people to even consider for two hours in a tale of fiction.

All in all, the various forms of censorship seem to stem directly from government control and mandates to limit the type and content of media distribution available to the Chinese public. While blacking out channels and banning websites is a much more visible form of censorship, the physical limitation of available channels and media content through self-censorship present the most effective means of limiting the “dangerous and inappropriate” media exposure of the Chinese people.

To constantly censor and control the media is one of China’s greatest domestic policy goals. Authorities recognize the power that the media has in fostering ideas of freedom of expression, government accountability, and the truth, and all the changes that such ideas will cause. I resent the nationalization of local media, increased government powers to regulate the media - even if only benevolently - and any media moral code or conformity, because in China, these are all that keep the population silenced to the oppression and injustices of their own government.

Idaho Wolf Hunt and Media Involvement

2010-01-09T23:57:00.005-11:00

Last semester when I was investigating for an article I was writing about the Idaho Grey Wolf open season, I encountered a shocking variety of media relating specifically to the hunt.

The issue was related to the delisting of the Grey Wolf from the Endangered Species Act, and then the start of an open season on the wolf by Idaho.

There were websites detailing the legal proceedings of the lawsuits that followed the delisting. There was a website posting a letter to the Secretary of State from a non-profit environmentalist group. There were even more articles and pages detailing the factual aspects of the delisting and wolf hunt. But what I was most surprised by was firstly, the government’s usage of the internet to deliver information, and the public’s use of the internet as a means of expressing an emotional response.

Idaho has a population of 1.5 million people – slightly more than the Bronx Borough of New York City – yet the state has a range of online information services that has almost become essential to my own life when in and outside of Idaho.

The Idaho Fish and Game agency within its already minimal government is able to manage an extensive website that provides huge amounts of information.

Specifically relating to the hunting of the grey wolf, Idaho Fish and Game provides hunt information ranging from wolf hunting regulations, a map and chart of updated wolf kills by region, and even specific hunting tips. Since there is a limit to the number of wolves that can be killed in each region, the updated map allows hunters to check up in real time if the season has been closed or not in their area. Considering that the wolf hunt, because of its sensitivity, is heavily regulated and monitored, the regulations page contains the myriad of mandatory legal information for any person who is in a wolf hunting zone.

Purely through the use of the internet, any novice hunter can be prepared with wolf hunting skills, season information and legal regulations needed to be a responsible outdoor gamesman. Any such situation, especially for backcountry residents who do not rely on the internet, would be unimaginable just ten years ago.

The public has been able to use the internet to, with little or no coordination, effectively create a strong emotional response to the hunt. Environmentalist groups have paved the way with an established forum and base support group to provide a backlash against the hunt. The Defenders of Wildlife video below is just one example of the ways in which an organization is able to utilize media and the internet to rally for a cause completely free from any traditional media spaces such as the radio talk shows, television stations, newspaper editorials.

Social networking and blogging sites have been the central medium through which responses to the wolf hunts was rallied.
Facebook opposition groups such as ‘Call off the Guns’, ‘Stop the Wolf Hunts in Idaho’, and ‘Wolf Massacre’, and even anti-wolf groups ‘Anti-Wolf Idaho’ and ‘Transplant Idaho’s wolves to Central Park’, have rallied a few thousand people to their causes. Separate Facebook groups supporting some legendary individual wolf packs even exist! Proclaimed environmentalist blogs such as The Alternative Consumer or Ralph Maghaun’s Wildlife News (interesting photo) have provided a new forum for wolf related comments and debates, all outside the confines of any financially or physically restrictive media establishment.

Facebook Privacy Concerns: PR

2010-01-09T19:56:00.004-11:00

Relating to in class discussion: Facebook has apparently recognized the privacy concerns with regards to indexing for search engines. Whether or not the following explanation addresses all of these concerns or includes certain loopholes, I am not sure.

2012 has already arrived for print newspapers

2010-01-09T19:31:00.004-11:00

My central Idaho hometown newspaper serves only the tiniest of high-alpine, rural valley towns. Surrounded by cattle ranches and miles of untouched mountain forests, the local source of news has not changed since the first family-owned presses went into being in the region. As I discovered on New Year’s Day, seeing it on the screen of an iPhone, like so many other newspapers in America, the Idaho Mountain Express has gone online.
The media’s most dramatic trend is the decline in print newspaper readership and advertising revenues, and the response of newspaper companies publishing content online. The effect of the declining readership has been devastating, and the decline of print news will forever change the media landscape.

Nationwide online newspaper readership has grown 11 percent year over year, faster than the increase the growth in total active Internet users which was 3 percent, according to research by Nielsen/NetRatings. According to the study, one out of four American Internet users consumes their news from online sources.

The rise of internet news production relates to its convenience of access, immediate reporting, and selectivity by readers. Internet sites also offer interactivity such as article forwarding, blogging, comments, streaming video and audio clips which make the experience all the more enjoyable online. Readers today also receive news almost instantly upon any amount of engagement with the internet on their handheld devices or email.

Just four decades ago, all consumers of news relied on print media or radio broadcasts. The growth of a new source of news has reduced traditional print newspaper readership. The Audit Bureau of Circulations reported that newspaper circulation fell 2.6 percent among the top 20 largest newspapers in the U.S. in just six months, the largest drop recorded in two decades.

The rise in alternate sources of news and demise of newspaper readership has, in turn, caused advertising revenues to fall so low so that they can longer support the print publication and original gathering of news. Traditionally, print publication was the favorite medium for advertisers to effectively reach target audiences.
Today, with the decline in readership, and increase of alternate advertising mediums, companies are not willing to pay large sums of money for advertisements, if they choose to do so at all. Since their peak in 2005, nationwide advertising revenues have fallen by one third and see no end. In 2009, revenues continued to decline by 21 per cent according to the Financial Times. As a result, some of the largest newspapers in the country such as the LA Times and Chicago Tribune, all part of Tribune, are joining the ranks of more than a dozen local newspapers that are folding all over the country every year. Oversupply, in combination with declining newspaper readership, is killing any demand for advertising.

As people turn to online sources of information, the biggest online newspapers will attract the bulk of new readership with near instantaneous reporting and greater selection of news articles, editorials, blogs, videos and pictures. With the playing field no longer equalized by the quality of the product that rolls off the presses every morning, the biggest losers will most clearly be local newspapers.

Presently all solutions to the problem seem to breed government dependence or require the abolition of highly localized news reporting. French government authorities have injected $776 million over three years, doubling government advertising and offering tax breaks for the investments of newspaper publishers. Local publishers have lobbied the British Parliament to reduce anti-trust legislation and allow newspaper consolidation to increase newspaper size and monopoly power. It is not that large newspapers don’t already exist, but both of these potential solutions require a dangerous dependence on government – dangerous because the newspaper plays the central role in holding all levels of government accountable. Also, unless economic utility is completely disregarded by government policy, larger newspapers will be favored and smaller newspapers will grow in size, ultimately destroying localized news reporting.

This is just a brief overview of the declining readership, advertising revenues, and circulation – all part of a phenomenon that is reshaping the American media landscape – an example of 21st century change that may not be for the best.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d00f013a-1261-11de-b816-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Online-newspapers-flourish/2100-1025_3-5953393.html

My Media Meal

2010-01-06T08:21:00.000-11:00

Everyday I consume a variety of media, ranging from healthy news, well-done articles, loaves of shows and videos, and a bit of sweet music to top it off. This healthy diet of media consumption also comes hand in hand with social media consumption.

My healthy portion of news consumption happens usually only twice a day, once after or between classes, and late at night. I make it a daily habit of screening CNN, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. I do not rule out Foxnews as a source of news, which I check the most often, because many of Foxnews' exclusive stories. Other news agencies often have overlapping headlines and stories, but the stories chosen by Foxnews are often of little interest to non-conservative audiences, and thus often not reported. Foxnews often has the most political headlines of any agency, especially in the recent year, which allows me to get my daily dose of exclusive political, conservative-interest stories. I do not take any reporting at face value, and I am very careful about differentiating hard news from opinion stories and articles with unreliable sources or a biased angle.

My consumption of music is much like the consumption of sweets: always done in moderation, suited to the occasion, pleasing for the mind, and of high taste. However, the music that I have collected over the years, has not always come from the most legal of sources. Growing up in China, purchasing real, imported CDs (with huge import duties) is especially hard to do - they are hard to find, selection is poor, they are incredibly expensive, and many of the real CDs end up being really good fakes. Online options, such as iTunes are mostly blocked by the government. It becomes impossible to wait until you to leave the country in a years time just to download that song you heard on the radio.

Videos make up the fiber and energy of my media consumption. Before this year when I lived in China, my daily routine consisted of one hour of some fascinating Discovery Channel show and one more hour of some miscellaneous TV show; most likely a 'House' or 'Grey's Anatomy'. In winter months, there was of course the biweekly 'American Idol' appointment. All of these shows were, of course, imported to China for Americans only and occasionally interrupted by government censors. For favorite family shows, we would always buy complete TV show series on DVD, usually pirated in China, complete with Chinese subtitles for my aunt, just a week after the season finale for typically less than five dollars a season.

After arriving at boarding school, my video consumption slowed almost to a standstill. Aside from watching news clips online and the once-weekly roommate video night, I don't consume videos at all.

My consumption of well-done articles, as opposed to raw or medium rare, mainly comes from subscriptions to the financial times online, or an intriguing The Economist that a friend may scan for me on the weekends.

Facebook, Twitter, other networking sites, and email helps me absorb social information. I do receive news and articles through this, but through this, I become a producer of media. Aside from posting political cartoons, news links, and interesting pictures on my home page, I write messages to friends, but most importantly, little political quotes or news blips as statuses, just to keep friends up to date with issues I care about.