Blogger Clogger's Bloggelation of Smaug's Nog Blog

     How's that for a title?!

     Happy Feast Day Christians and to those of you from Albania, Mauritania or Panama, happy Independence Day. That is, of course, provided you're actually reading this on November 28^th, which is, of course, provided any of you are reading this at all.

     For my last blog entry I've decided to pay tribute to the upcoming release of the movie The Desolation of Smaug as well as egg nog for a more festive feel. Normally, I wouldn't get all X-Mas before December but this being the last blog required certain considerations. So on that note, if you're one of the many looking forward to this movie then enjoy everything it will offer and if you're the type to slug back rum mixed with unsavoury “liquids” then enjoy the egg nog.

Of Cynics and Optimists

     More importantly, this blog is meant to focus on whether the general idea among the assembled blogs is that satirical news media is more, less or equally reliable as standard news media. If I've learned anything from your previous blogs, it's that there's a giant consensus that tea leaves could give us more accurate news reporting then the modern news media.

Clowns invading China at 10

(healing.about.com)

     This being the case, I think satirical news media has a pretty giant head start. For my own personal opinion though, they're equally reliable.

     One assessment from Karandeep Dhillon's first post, “...it could be that the media is portraying these facts to us in a manner which allows them to manipulate us into their way of thinking.”, among many from others, states this reliability of the current news media.

     In contrast, many of you enjoy the light-hearted nature of what satirical media brings to the table. Haley Bourque mentioned, “this is a smart way of informing societies of the events going on world wide, while still entertaining them in a positive way”. Throughout her blog she gives many details of how much she supports culture jamming and that she agrees with the notion that satirical news media is a form of culture jamming. A greatly effective one at that.

The Grand Conspiracy

     Is this devotion some people have to satirical media an illusive trick though?

Trustworthy... A little too trustworthy

(entertainmentrealm.com)

     Matthew Famele lends credence to my point by stating, “Even though these shows use humour to get the message across, they allow a truthful analysis and criticism of what the media portrays because they are less formal and allow the truth to be exposed”. While not poorly constructed or even wrong I find a great amount of trust being placed on the satirical media with just as little strong research proven to state that the satirical media is giving us the stated truth. While Matthew likely doesn't make a habit of blind acceptance, many do and this can easily be seen as a problem. Is mass media using this blind acceptance as a means to feed us one view point disguised as two or possibly to perpetuate the myth that anything but the news is fallacy or comedy?

The End of All Things

     So what does this mean for the public and its many spheres? I honestly believe that it means nothing. Humanity as an entity can't seem to hold onto things long enough for them to make a difference. Little things in the grand scope do scrawl their name into eternity but the learning curve for the lessons life teaches is always too steep. Only the individual seems to hold onto things. This beautiful eternity we course through is an Etch-a-sketch with new and wonderful art to keep things fresh.

(www.telegraph.co.uk)

     While we do tend to witness the grotesque before us, we also see the beauty and when the next morning comes everything gets shaken up once again. 


Referenced Blogs
- http://jattinc.wordpress.com/2013/09/
- http://hb123na.wordpress.com/
- http://matthewfamele.wordpress.com/

Blogger Clogger's Nonworking Mental Cog Blog

 “...bear in mind that culture jamming is a form of communication that can come only from outside commercial culture, not from inside the media industry.”

(O'Shaugnessy & Stadler. 2012 pg. 214)

Hello Everyone!      Hope this Thursday morning is going swimmingly for you all. Today, in the wide world of Professional Blogging we're discussing the nature of culture jamming. It has nothing to do with our father's tendency to jam every historical site into a vacation. More to the point, culture jamming is an active attempt to stand against the erroneous failing of modern mass media to provide the truth.

The Daily Colbert Conundrum

     So are shows like the Colbert Report or The Daily Show truly a form of culture jamming? They do make a point of standing against the mass media or at least political media. These shows also manage to bring certain elements of the truth that the mass media fails to hide into the light. I really like these shows but no matter what my thoughts are it's a situation I must defer to the scientists for.

Cue the quote above.

     No matter your feelings on Daily and his band of merry political warmongers we can't dismiss the fact that they are ever entrenched within the mass media. There are massive media corporations and major sums of currency making these shows a success and the further you travel up the ladder of currency the closer you get to the maw of consumption.

Pictured: Media and its Maw

(antiherogaming.wordpress.com)

Daddy Issues

     So my father can't be considered a brilliant paragon of human evolution but he's got some intellect and he has some ethics. In many of his righteous moments he professes the problem with shows of this nature trivializing serious problems by saturating them with humour. He makes many claims to the fact that the mass media relies on the tendency for humans to relax in the face of humour and think the problems stated are nothing more than a joke so we shouldn't concern ourselves with them. This understanding of my father's plays perfectly with one of Stadler and O'Shaughnessy's limitations of culture jamming:

“The use of controversy and humour can serve to focus attention on the ad, not the issue, or it can trivialize the issue.” (O'Shaugnessy & Stadler. 2012 pg. 226)

(social.bioware.com)

     I know, I was shocked too upon finding out the truth. Far more than just having to come face to face with the fact that I do the same thing...that some of my truly enjoyed shows may be sharing pints along side that which they profess to bring down, I had to see the proof that they were actually a limitation on the efforts of the revolution.

     Are these proofs concrete? No, they're just text but they're proofs regardless and I'm sure the avid among you can find many counter proofs through a lot of watching of the The Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Much like the American military's regards to hippies, I welcome your dissent. Either way, I'm still going to watch their shows :)


Text References
- O'shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J. (2012). Media and Society: Fifth Edition. South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press, Pgs: 214 & 226

Blogger Clogger's Clog Blog

 Good Morning friends!

(frankly-gorgeous.com)

     I got my coffee, an empty stomach and a full day ahead of me. It's time to start writing dirty.

(vimeo.com)

     Alright, I honestly feel a bit bad about that one. Not entirely irrelevant though since Chamillionaire's in your face imagery above is a good example of my overall point for the topic at hand.

     The similarities and differences in ad interpellation between your blogs.

     Luckily, this doesn't say anywhere I have to reference my blog cause then I'd be doomed. Referencing a sea of references is a bit too Xzibit for me but I digress, let's get serious here.

(jackson5abc.com)

     I checked out a great deal of the blogs present and discovered an even larger amount of personal opinion than initially expected. The ways the media can directly influence us seems to grow each day. My main goal here is to show how three different approaches to advertising can all have one major similarity.

     

     In Jessica Dixon's blog about a Colgate toothpaste ad she rightly vents against a form of advertising that, seemingly, directly revolves around the idea of being overtly offensive in an, “Oops! We didn't realize”, sorta way. These advertisements, which wear the masterwork robes of ignorance saturation +2, seem completely blind to their own subtext and instead rely solely on walking all over you with the clogs of comedic crassness.

(public-domain.zorger.com)

     Hello pot, meet kettle. In Jessica's line, “The commercial tells the viewer that all she has to do is to smile and look pretty so that he will talk to her “ one can sense the vehemence with which she hates this commercial. A sense not really needed since the blog is filled with her disdain. She is, though, correct because the commercial has foregone subtlety and embraced outright offensiveness.

     From the opposing side of this coin we have an ad that tries to combat this offensiveness seen in society. Shannon White, a charismatic young lady, brought us an ad designed by women who work for the UN. The ad seeks to fight for women's rights by using a picture to illustrate a thousand words. Shannon does a fantastic job of understanding that this ad's ability to be in your face and open about its message, regardless of criticism, is what makes it work. Like those who take up the fight, this advert is fearless about its wants. Shannon writes, “The truth is, that if you type into google “women should” the results depicted in this ad are real suggestions that pop up on google.” demonstrating that she's already taken the first steps against this injustice and well displaying the truth and force this ad can hit with.

     Stereotyping is my final point and I use it because of its connection to interpellation. Stereotyping forges its own identities for large groups of people that are, more often than not, prejudice in some manner. One can accept stereotyping as interpellation gone wrong even if the stereotype is not immediately a bad one. Rob Hundy brings these thoughts to mind with his blog detailing a Molson Canadian advertisement. “...being Canadian and fortifying the cultural identity that we travel far and wide helping those in need.” is the quote that struck me because here we have a clear stereotype which is not immediately a bad one but still there. While Rob does not immediately address this point my concern lies in the question; How long will it be before ads try and push the boundaries to use the worst stereotypes to their advantage and have they already?

     These three ads all appeal to my age group and younger. They all sent a clear message to their viewer. They just take three different roads in order to appeal as best they can whether it be crassness, ethics or stereotype humour. They also do one thing perfectly well as a group; They all lack subtlety because subtlety never sells.

Thanks Pitbull :)

(adweek.com)

Referenced Blogs

• http://jd11ow.wordpress.com/
• http://shanwhite95.blogspot.ca/
• http://robsblogforclass17.blogspot.ca/2013/11/what-hail.html

Blogger Clogger's Pog Blog

     So my skink peed on me today.

     Granted, it's rather early in the day so there's plenty of time that will offset that hardship and admittedly, it's not even that early. We're between the 8:00 AM class mark and the still early enough to frown mark. At least I have Mini Wheats!

(twincitiestec.org)

     That shameless plug was brought to you by the number 8 (Which is how much a box of Mini Wheats costs) and the letter S for shill. You see sports fans, a shill is someone who will do anything for money and will give you the bare minimum, expect to get payed the same and move on to the next person who will give him coin for nothing. Take this advertisement for example:

(huffingtonpost.com)

     Where do I even begin you ask? Good question, image of a person that I put together with my imagination. Let's start with who this is aimed at.

(coolhunting.com)

     Alright, probably not but that kid on the right looks like he's seen some shit. Vodka, like cognac, is more of an old man drink. Without getting into the mixed drink circuit most people aren't going to be drinking vodka straight. Tequila, scotch and beer, sure but vodka, whiskey or water, not likely. It's clear to see though that this advert is not directed at older individuals but the 20 to 30 market and maybe a touch lower for its obvious raunchy humour.
     Are we also able to say this is aimed at a specific gender though? I would say no. While it's clear that it has fragmented the genders into very defined roles, it is not using that interpellation as a means to sell the product. Stadler and O'Shaughnessy stated, "Gender is central to identity and gender socialisation is one of the earliest processes of interpellation" (O'Shaughnessy and Stadler, 2012, Pg. 185). If gender is so inherent then to our ability to develop identity and socialize, why would an ad do it's best to ignore it? Maybe it doesn't care or maybe, it realizes that it framed the genders in a really bad light.

Should this surprise us?

     Not at all; advertisements for drinking have frequently been skewing more and more away from the older crowd and diving into a younger audience while keeping themselves before the “too far!” line. They've also done a great job of breaking down gender barriers. It's the attractive younger generation we see in this advert that they want to reach and having these people front and center is your proof of who it's directed at.

     Want some more proofs? Look at the text, which is displayed in a manner that instantly brings to mind a meme that you would see on reddit, imgur or 4chan. These meme are upheld and established, usually, by individuals just breaking the 20 year mark. Individuals that are being targeted early with the intent of a long loving relationship.

     The dirty humour is also a quality that wouldn't sit well with an older generation. Not that they can't understand it but more so that it doesn't resonate with them as well. The add makes a point of wagging the humour in your face by emphasizing the set up of the joke not only with a black foreground but in a different colour text all together. I'll refrain from explaining this obvious joke that the ad is bringing forth and allow you the pleasantry of addressing your parents, should you be confused.

Phillips or Jackson?

     So I'm not about to buy Canadian tire out of its screwdriver collection but the vodka ad doesn't turn me off completely. Does it have a fault or two? Saint Andrea would say yes but at least Belvedere knows exactly who to aim for. While they didn't uphold any of my beliefs about drinking vodka or the norms I expect around people who do...well, maybe the mixed drink crowd... they do get their point across. It's just too bad that smoothness isn't everything a vodka should be.

So who got it right?

(trivto.deviantart.com)

Citation

O’Shaughnessy, M., & Stalder, J. (2012). Media and society: Fifth edition. South Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press. Pg. 185

Blogger Clogger's Fog Blog

Blogger Clogger's Fog Blog

     Happy Halloween everyone!

     Today's thought is whether the media we want is the same as the media we need. If you read my last post then you already know I'm not much a fan of this question based on how open ended the answers will be. There will, likely, never be a definitive answer and so the question is trying. Is it still worth asking?

 (beforeitsnews.com)

I...guess?

     To be perfectly honest, if I get a good dose of politics or economics, it'll be due to a miss click on Reddit.com. Those two topics don't interest me much and I'm hazey on almost every one of their details but I can't deny they effect me.
     So why don't I watch TV for my media? Because more than ever TV has devolved into either news or reality TV and as Adelina Ferati stated, "Shows such as “Keeping up with the Kardashians, Jersey Shore, Real House Wives of Vancouver. etc.” are all meant to show viewer the real life of living a rich life, but it fails to show the actual reality". Stating clearly that the majority of TV wanting to show us reality, in fact, shows falsity. 

     An important distinction here is that you have media and then the media. While viewing the question from the view that we're talking about the media the answer breaks down into negative discussion immediately about how the media is against us. One example of this is brought to us by Tori Gligic who poignantly summarizes her blog in her final line, "The media wants as much attention as possible and will continue to produce what they know we will want to see". While not immediately concealed in negativity, the line and blog post gives the idea that the media is force feeding us filth in order to fatten us up for what I can only assume are diabolical ends. 

     Personally my most cherished form of media comes from personal interaction and it's where I get my culture, news and social...ness? It's a form not widely recognized by the public but dearly needed all the same and I think of it as a media and not the media. Because of how simple it is to talk to a person, the information gained comes pretty easily but then again...

...is it really that easy to talk to those around us?

(thechive.com)

     Face to face discourse seems so simple until you try and use your mouth. It's then that everything becomes cloudy and the fear of interaction kicks in. Everyone sits in rapt awkardity (<--- made up word) and the world becomes menacing as low lying clouds turn everyone into Jack the Ripper's silhouette. From this viewpoint most would choose not to make use of this vital form of media due to this fear of who that stranger could be. While this takes a glib view of the matter the subtext lingers.

(bloody-disgusting.com)

I don't know this person so that means they're a serial killer

     Alright, a bit extreme, I concur but when was the last time you struck up a conversation with a stranger simply cause you didn't want to waste the beauty of language on silence.

     Face to face media? Give it a try; it may catch on one of these days.

Blogger Clogger's Slog Blog

Blogger Clogger's Slog Blog

    Well hello everyone, I'm finally back and coming to you in the final hours of allowance for this little assignment of ours. We all have long days and for me, this was an impressive one filled with mistakes, midterms, work and traveling. This makes the title of today's blog particularly fitting.

During one of the many hours of work though I anticipated how, to-the-wire, this entry may be and I decided to start my blog at work in the only way I could think to do. Interview the people at Zehrs, co-worker and otherwise as if I were a journalist asking them the question of the hour:

Do we get the media we want or want the media we get?

     I initially laughed upon seeing this question because I can see the philosophical value in debating the thought for years on end but that will never answer anything really. I know I'm supposed to pick a side and argue for it, and I will, but think about this logically...

How many forms of media do you honestly not care about?

How many forms of media do you have no interest in indulging in?

… If we follow some prior thoughts, in that almost all of life can be considered one media or another, Then I'm guessing the answer to the previous question is many. In this vein, we should always get the media we want because the rest is ignored. However, this only counts for the preliminary acquisition of the media and it's rather easy to hate what you end up with. So did we get the media we want in these cases? No, this rationale only works when we view the question from the point of view of the singular observer. The audience is another matter and as Stadler and O'Shaughnessy say, "All our efforts at finding the meanings of texts may come to grief when we confront the real audience" (Media and Society: Fifth Edition University Press 2013 Pg.97). The "real audience" can speak for every individual and every individual is moot when challenged by the "real audience". The only option here is to look at the latter half of the question.

Do we want the media we get?

     If you've ever honestly watched someone watch Jersey Shore you know that you've really (emphasis added here is too significantly stressed to be described through script) got to want it in order to sit through it. That there is your answer. Everyone has their own Jersey Shore. That little moped in the back of the garage that you don't want your friends to see you drive. That's wanting the media you get. It's easy to say that you hate the news or hate what the fashion magazines are excluding (truth) but eventually you fall right back onto your hidden moped and drive back to Jersey Shore where you bask in the sunlight of your own needed media that tans you oh so brilliantly orange. I think James Halloran puts it pretty well, "We must get away from the habit of thinking in terms of what the media do to people and substitute for it the idea of what people do with the media" (Halloran, J 1970, The Effects of Television, Panther, London). The answer, my friend and reader, is dirty, dirty things.

     But I digress! John Patcher informed me, during the interview, that, “the media only gives us what it wants us to want”, which immediately made me not want to continue the interview. After breaking contact with the man and being loosely chastised by my manager I shut things down and got back to work for a couple minutes.

     Mary Phillips from the West side made it clear that we most certainly do get the media we need in a very verbose way. “Of course we get the media we need”, she exclaimed excitedly, “If we had no media, we wouldn't know the state of the world. We need the media”. Well Mary, all my gut says is "potentially".

Tony Johnson, a baker in the North told me to get away from him and Ted Nugent was not around for comment.

     So in closing, let me ask you. When engaging this form of media today, did you read the blog you wanted or get the laugh you needed?  

Blogger Clogger's Jog Log Blog

***Disclaimer: Not only is the disclaimer here because people are more inclined to read things with a disclaimer but it's a message to the TAs. For the sake of your busy schedules, you can skip ahead to the “***” gap beyond where the real meat of my blog begins. If you have time and need a silly giggle, read on from the beginning.***
   
     Well, it's official. After my last post I was utterly inundated with a cavalcade of people complaining about the absurdity of my blog. Furious at my draconian debasement of traditional etiquette they sent a plethora of hate mail detailing every little error with the one thing I expected no comeuppance to be received regarding. Who would have thought you wonderful people were so passionate about the word log. Yes, I understand my last post involved no log's of a woody nature or a graphical nature so in order to make it up to you I will now include a log about logs I have had to leap while taking jogs that have also been logged.
  -  January 2^nd 1990: I was age 6 and had to jump an icy log which I, in turn, choked the landing. Hurt myself and learned a lesson.
  -  September 14^th 1994: At age 11...My birthday's in May... I was biking along a trail in Guelph. Rather than jump the log on my bike, I got off the bike and climbed over. With a hop and a skip I claimed success and scrawled my name into eternity. Not technically a jog but my tire went flat near the end of the ride because I was drunk on log hopping power. This led me to needing to jog after my friend who still had his bike and I was left in crestfallen loneliness.
  -  March 11^th 1999: Partying in honour to the prospect of the world ending I jogged to the store a couple days after a storm. A guy living on that street had to cut down an old maple tree in his yard. One of the pieces lay strewn across the sidewalk mocking my happiness. I couldn't turn back without my Popeye's Cigarettes though and victory was attained.
  -  July 29^th 2008: On my way to work a dastardly chipmunk leaped upon a log that was in my way and challenged me to a right of manhood. It won but I ate that day.

***

     So here we are. With that out of the way, I am certain we can all let bygones be bygones and I can get on with talking about how you all seem to think the media is Skeletor's right hand engine of destruction.
   
     By and large, the consensus, from my readings, is that the media is tainting society. Not all seem to believe this and some have even taking the opposite approach but there are many who are upset with the media's influential grasp. Were I to read every post, I'm certain things would find themselves closer to a fifty fifty split. The spirit of these posts though, is not to pass judgment or proclaim others as wrong but to understand and siphon knowledge from the experiences of others, good or bad. Also, I've been listening to Josh Groban for far too long to actually criticize and/or judge people too heavily. That man's voice is just perfect...*swoon*.
   
     So let's view the media's effect from three viewpoints.
   
     In the blog, (http://matthewfamele.wordpress.com/1f25-post-1-media-impact/ ) Matthew Famele does a fantastic job of correlating how the media can take the ideas we have thought of to bring down the media and use them to strengthen its own position in order to tighten its grip on our own needs. “However fabricated this conspiracy may be; it is evident that the concept of the Illuminati is very much alive today within mass media”, is a well delivered line about how the media has used our curiosity and fascination in secret societies to frame themselves as the ultimate mystery and utilize this conundrum to keep us constantly seeking the truth and thus, constantly being influenced. Humans abhor the unknown and whether you fear the unknown or seek to enlighten it, one will eventually surround their self with it to be absolved of the ignorance.
     
     Meagan McLeod (http://mm13sa.wordpress.com/) takes us into a fairy tale world of imagination asking us to to live out a life free of the media, only to prove her point that such a life is impossible. In her beautifully chilling line, “A world completely disconnected with one another” we are forced to realize that a life without media separates us from every other person, as we exist, “completely disconnected” without the media that we know. To honestly think about this can only inspire loneliness and make one thankful for media even with all the faults that the mass media may bring about.     

     In viewing how the media can be both manipulative and needed we then must turn to the dark side. If you're capable of imagining James Earl Jones voice in your head then I suggest reading the next paragraph in such a manner. If you have no concept of what I'm talking about then you have made me sad and I find your lack of reference based knowledge disturbing.
   
     Lauren Stirling (http://lostirling.wordpress.com/) is a beautiful woman with the courage to say she is utterly dominated by the media and yet lacks the understanding to realize their domination doesn't truly matter. Her exasperation is evident in the line, “They control us in the worst way too! They do it in a way that leads you to believe that it is really your own idea to buy a certain product or believe what government is doing is right or wrong but really you only think that way because of an “expert opinion” they've allowed you to hear” which seemingly pleads with us to share her consternation. The blog talks about a troubled woman's dependency to achieve a level of beauty that the media has deemed respectable without realizing that there are just as many who shun what the media says as there are people who deify it; A point proven in the myriad blogs from this course. Lauren doesn't need the highest priced things to honestly be beautiful; Lauren has already achieved beauty by opening her heart to us, adding, to what I'm certain, are many more qualities that make her a elegantly attractive lady. You don't need to watch many nostalgic children's shows to realize, sharing your heart equals beauty. Children's networking is also a vital part of the media and look how you turned out.     
     
     So has anyone who has posted altered my concepts and views of the media? In short, no. That doesn't mean I haven't enjoyed many of my readings though. As stated, the point was to learn and I have. I've read many viewpoints beyond the three listed and have been forced to consider some...eclectic and even downright esoteric viewpoints. That there, is what I've been saying all along though; Everyone's creativity is needed and enlightening and the only way to achieve such enlightenment is through the media we all use. So in closing...

...Thank you everyone for enlightening me a little :)