Instagram

In any conversation about youth and the internet, the issue of cyberbullying through social networking sites rears its head. For years now, we have the proof screaming in our faces, that onlineharassment causes real-life damage to young adults, without much more information about how to prevent these incidents or explanations of why they happen in the first place. Less commonly commented on is the internet's overall themes of apathy and hate and how these pop culture mores play a part in the online persona of young people, ultimately leading to things like online bullying. It is not the internet itself which contributes to youth's obsession with excess and intolerance of opinion, but out culture is simply magnified. Our consumer culture has paved the way for this behavior, with or without social networking, young adults would still be bullying each other and making bad decisions. The internet has regurgitated, made famous, and reinforced these ideals. Too often the conversation stops at internet etiquette and parental oversight of       online harassment and bad behavior. Instead, our pop culture values and consumer driven morals should be the object of scrutiny.

 

Instagram is a popular online photography program. Users can set up web pages, which host thousands of pictures, free of charge and use the easy artistic photo manipulation technology across a variety of sites. What once required professional photography skills to enact, now only takes moments, as any picture can be rendered beautifully aged, ochre-toned, and painfully hip with the press of one button. Celebrities may hire whole teams of professionals to achieve these looks, but kids on the internet can use instagram to ape the stylized looks of their role-models, and thus, believe they have done something important or artistic. Recently, a blog called “The Rich Kids of Instagram” has become popular for bringing together images of the shallow, excessive consumerist bent that young adults display through this social medium. While the connection between cyberbullying and TRKOI may not be apparent right away, the bad decision making inherent in each stems from an overall ignorance pertaining to how to conduct oneself online, a lack of empathy or ability to see the world outside oneself, and a rejection of subjective views about right/wrong.

These attitudes about life epitomized online reach far beyond rich kids showing off. Take, for example, the recent photographs which caused an uproar world-wide, young Israeli soldiers posing happily before supposedly going into battle with Palestine. They've tagged themselves with words like #armytime and #boring and captioned the photos saying, "ready for war" and "we're coming for you Gaza", while tensions in the Gaza strip build to a horrendous reality for many.

Technology has changed the way we interact with the world around us (as well as how we interact with others, certainly) but technologies have also changed how we are intrinsically. With the advent of the motion picture, humans were challenged to change the way we think about sequences of events. On a daily basis, we suspend disbelief in order to enjoy our favorite TV shows and movies, and this is a learned behavior. While we gained the ability to accept what we saw on-screen, we also began "accepting the premise that mere sequence was rational including the idea that whatever is, is acceptable." (Weinbrenner, 654).

There are certainly those in the millennial generation using their comfort with the internet for amazingly selfless and courageous purposes. Social networking sites were integral to the Arab Spring and some authors have suggested that young people's use of the internet will usher in a true democracy for America. Until our values change intrinsically and young people are encouraged and rewarded for their exhibitions of empathy and sensitivity, young white men wearing “Help me I'm poor” t-shirts and posing next to their Porsches will be the daily rigmarole we are all sadly subjected to online.

<http://richkidsofinstagram.tumblr.com/post/36290227905/ironic-porsche>
<http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr01/2012/11/15/14/enhanced-buzz-22878-1353009393-7.jpg>

 Certainly the presidential nominees are aware of the general consensus held against attack ads. Any reasonable person in the United States would say, if asked, that the political arena can be a vicious place and much of this viciousness is apparent in commercial television advertisements, regardless of party or person. This election season it is easy to find anecdotal evidence proving that the public is quite sick of any political advertising, negative or positive. Politicans still spends hundreds of millions of dollars on ads, however, and almost all of it are ads attacking the opposition.

Mitt Romney has a peculiar campaign ad running on YouTube and across the country. In it, he provides proof that Barack Obama uses deceit to shore up his own political advertising. “Barack Obama has a history of attacking his opponents with lies” its says, “and his attacks against Mitt Romney are simply not true.” Romney shows footage of Hillary Clinton also denegrating the use of attack ads, saying Obama spends millions of dollars on disparaging ads and that he should be ashamed of himself. There is a quote from the Washington Post saying, “on just about every level this ad is untrue.” Romney finds notoriously non-conservative sources to shore up his argument that Obama uses attack ads more frequently and in an abnormal manner.

The ad goes on to say Romney “has a plan to get America working.” This in and of itself implies that Obama does not have a plan. It goes on, quoting the Department of Labor Statistics that Obama has the worst job record since the Great Depression.

In a thirty second span, the Romeny advertisment criticizes Obama's use of attack advertising by attacking Obama for using it. Hillary Clinton is shown forcefully waving and pointing, saying, with much conviction, “So, shame on you Barack Obama”. Towards the end of the commercial, the Romney endorsed voiceover outright attacks Obama on his job stance. Under the guise of factual information, this ad shows that attack ads are the routine in contemporary television political campaigns. By showing Clinton and the Post (notorious liberal institutions) as having a bipartisan connection with Romney, the anti-mudslinging stance, Romney kills two birds with one stone: showing his ability to work in a bipartisan way against things he disagrees with and that he is “better” than Obama because he disagrees with political attack ads.

The Department of Labor Statistic he uses is meant to be proof that Romney knows better that Obama in terms of jobs for the American working class. Instead, this last bit of information only proves that Romney is not above also using disparaging remarks against his opponent. Instead of showing how bad the President is at something, if Romney were truly against attacking him, he would simpy show some idea he himself had to improve the job situation in the US. By adding this remark and statistic in the last ten seconds of the commercial, Romney seems to use that campaign tool which he initially has said was beneath him, the attack stance. However, if we analyze the commercial more thoroughly, it is the entire thirty seconds which is attacking the POTUS, even though Romney means to say he is above that common political tool, the attack ad.

As much as we, the people claim to hold certain beliefs and standards opposing using harsh criticism towards others, these ads would seem to show otherwise. Who wasn't taught in childhood that the way to "get ahead" was by proving yourself and earning respect, that those who put others' down in order to make themselves look better were bullies and therefore, underserving of any respectable position. Politicians use this money because the advertisements work. The commercial described above shows that these ideas are common knowledge, but the practice still remains the same. This ad is achingly transparent. Although Romney claims that he does not use the attack strategy, he is in fact using an attack against Obama. This is somewhat of a catch-22. If a politician goes on television to denounce the use of attack ads, is he, by default, criticizing all other politicians who have not made the same statement? Furthermore, these attitudes are only perpetuated by the greater society who can concurrently complain about attack ads and yet support the candidates who use them exclusively.

YouTube

Since communities began gathering, creating, and sharing, there have been individuals who insist on harsh criticism and forms of bullying, from the tyrannical sort to simply just pushing someone around. Bullying online is a huge controversial issue in the media currently. The YouTube comments section of almost any user uploaded video is bound to have plenty of negative, hateful comments.  It is impossible to patrol any commentary online, as the internet runs rampant with trolls-  people who“post a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument"(urbandictionary.com). Is this online commentary a form of bullying? What causes people to feel obligated in sharing their hate for a certain YouTube user channel? First Amendment rights are human rights, but is there a line that is crossed, such as online stalking or teenagers turning to suicide after online harassment? As many “trolls” as there are online, many users still characterize an enduring human spirit, as many continue on unfazed, posting their own no-budget renditions of pop hits with seemingly no sense of embarrassment  or even more surprising, use these comments (which often are not constructive, but merely just critical) to appease their viewers and hopefully make their content more likable.

New media uses the online comments sections as a communication platform. As opposed to risking face-to-face criticism or navigating the complicated logictics inherent in the music industry, many aspiring musicians use YouTube as a form of exposure. Certainly there have been celebrities “found” on these networking sites, such as Justin Beiber or Rebecca Black. Conversely, some people use the comments section of these musicians' channels to voice harsh, hateful opinions about the work. These comments would be considered the pinnacle of anti-social, aggressive behavior if they were vocalized in a face to face setting. Online however, this behavior is the norm. The YouTube comments section is particularly interesting because of its “lack of clear rules of conduct and the way in which it challenges traditional conceptions of social space.” (Signs of Life, 446). In fact, trolling is a new form of communication and shapes facets of our collective popuar culture . Anecdotal evidence shows that these behaviors are generally believed to be the work of younger users, but“some YouTube participants and observers suggested that maturity plays a role in prompting hating behaviors, others argued that many young people are quite intelligent and are capable of participating on YouTube without making hateful comments.”(Lange, “Commenting on Comments”). The internet has simply offered a way to express unpopular emotions without risking societal reprimand concerning rules about public courtesy. 

UrbanDictionary.com (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolls  Oct. 2012)

Lange, Patricia G.  “Commenting On Comments: Investigating Responses to Antagonism on Youtube”

(http://sfaapodcasts.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/update-apr-17-lange-sfaa-paper-2007.pdf,   Oct. 2012)

circle K/seven 11/whatever

I learned tonight that a convenience store is selling red, republican Romney cups and blue, democratic Obama cups. Supposedly, the selling of each will be tallied and the chain will announce a "winner".  It seems unlikely that a marketing scheme like this will have an effect on anything or that this poll will be accurate in any way. It's crazy to think about the implications of something like this though. Pop culture advertising can morph seemingly any and everything into a meaningless exercise in consumerism. The fact that the political sphere is so intertwined with the corporate advertising, branding, marketing, and distribution (i.e. money) is disturbing to me. I consider myself highly political, knowledgeable, and aware, as far as things like this go, and I realize most people do not give a damn either way if there are certain coffee cups to use to show your affinity for a certain candidate. Pop culture has invaded the political spectrum of our society, however. It's not something you can really argue about, but I the two things should be separate! It is almost offensive, in a way, that these huge businesses would engage such a serious topic (after all, our government affects all of us) without any regard for a certain sense of dignity about the whole thing.

There are many instances where news production companies struggle to be the first ones on the scene. There is some merit to being the first “late-breaking” story.  Yet, there are many times news broadcasters wish they had waited just a little while longer to show on-air what they thought was news, but turned out to be conjecture (polling results, for example.) This on-air suicide is much more serious and has many more implications.

Rumours and conjecture often travel much faster than the facts themselves. In our rush for information, be it good or bad, many people don't care about accuracy. We want all the information and we want it now, with rarely a care for fact-checking. Many television corporations are aware of this and send out information as quickly as possible. Later, if revisions need to be mde or mistakes apologized for, it seems like no big deal to go back and change whatever information was put out there in the first place. Nine times out of ten, the news would have gone on to some other sensationalized story anyway.

Ideally, the news would be facts only, objective stories about current events, good and bad. Watching network news now, though, seems to suggest that the violent crimes and out-of-the-ordinary stories are the ones that get all the press. And not only do they take up space on the news roster, they are often presented in such a way that suggests how we should feel about the story- they are also blown out of proportion. On the other hand, local news attempts to temper their violence-ridden, biased news stories with fluff pieces about fashion shows and cute pets, which also serves to undermine the realities that we live everyday.

It's not a surprise that this man shot himself. It is surprising that it happened on-air. People expecting to tune into the news should not have to witness live people dying. On the other hand, what kind of people watch car cashes? Inevitabley, these cars crash and people die. That's to be expected. This is not the kind of news I would want to watch on television, or anywhere else. Many people in our culture though treat life as a sort of movie. If there is a car accident, many feel entitled to all the gory details.  

Target Advertising

As advertising becomes more advanced and consumers become less in control, the market is increasingly powered by the sellers. Not only does the capitalist system regarding the free hand of the market become obsolete, our pride in responsible, individualistic consumerist ideas become moot as well. If the only products offered are those tailored particularly to us, with no regard for privacy and only an agenda for furthering the status quo, consumers may have less access to choices for even the smallest most insignificant products. As we know less about the market, those in power are able to dictate which products are most suited for us and how/when/where we are exposed to their advertising.

Our ignorance extends beyond consumer reporting to the most basic right to privacy. This type of invasive marketing technique sets a precedent for furthering technologies and how they interact with daily lives. Studies have shown that most Americans object to tailored advertising because of the ways marketers get the information. Although ad execs insist that citizens will enjoy the convenience reaped from this practice, privacy advocates insist it is wrong to track and label them in ways they don't realize, or even understand. <1>  These practices are already in use, though, which shows how quickly education and reasonable legislation is needed to protect consumers.

However, people often vocalize their opinions in one way, but practice the opposite in real life situations. I may disagree with Vogue magazine hiring and exploiting 14-yr-old girls in the pages of their magazine, but I still wish to emulate their fashion and hold myself to those beauty standards. With the technology moving more quickly than any beauracratic legislation could ever hope to, citizens are caught in a dangerous fight between privacy and consumerism.

Even as advertising executives and audiences are informed about the incompatability between ideals in the media and real-life, “media literacy” is often confined to those actively seeking it out, or professionals in the field. Until everyone is exposed to this sort of education, there will only be slight repercussions against companies that use ill-gotten or ill-kept information, or companies that obejctify women and reinforce stereotypes which contribute to inequalities in our society. <2>

<1>   Joseph Turrow, et al. “Americans Reject Tailored Advertising and Three Activites That Enable It.” (2009). http://ssrn.com/abstract=1478214

<2>    Mark Adkins, et al. "A Test Of Media Literacy Effects And Sexual Objectification In Advertising." Journal of Current Issues and Research In Adertising (CTC Press) 29.1 (2007): 81-92. Business Source Premier. Web. 26 Sept. 2012.

rant

After writing my first response essay and really contemplating the study of pop culture, I keep returning to the idea that my thoughts may not be more than opinion pieces or critical descriptions.

How do we use semiotics in a more meaningful way? A way backed up with evidence? How do we practice clarity in a study wrought with so much convolution?

Since I've begun writing I've had problems expressing myself concisely. Organization helps, certainly, but this topic in particular has me looking for new ways to bypass my too-complicated, layered and loaded ideas.  I re-read and re-structure and re-start this essay to seemingly no avail. I read out-loud and beg for feed back, but have not been yet satisfied with what it sounds like.

I wrote my first response essay on a magazine cover that I treated more as a piece of pop culture art. It was an "art issue" for the magazine, which was pertinent. The subject matter, however, was a bit more layered. It featured a naked female celebrity literally being censored in an artistic manner. In a way the censorship was meant to be a comment all its own on the status of pop culture. If the viewer didn't take the time to research the art, though, the censorship reads as self-indulgent and a reflection of pure base Hollywood. How does one make an art critique into a pop culture story? Maybe part of the problem I'm having is the narratives we are to be looking for. I can ponder for hours the narratives I'm presented with everyday, but its true that when you're closer to something it can be harder to analyze. Objectivity and all that...

advertising

We are all experts in analyzing commercials, simply because we are almost always bombarded with them, everywhere.  Commercials are easier to analyze than pop culture because ads are always straightforward in that we know what the objective is - to sell a certain product.  The commodification of culture is much more opaque, but is reflected in how advertisers use our culture to sell things to us.

We expect ads to be stupid! Because we are expects we are able to cut through the BS so many times. Ads instead try to distract us with tongue-in-cheek images and characters with the expectation that we will find this amusing instead of just dumb. Flavored vodka ads are a perfect example of both these things as the product itself is new and a representation of a new kind of lifestyle. Using pop culture as evidence, Americans value wealth, beauty, youth and making adventurous, fun memories for ourselves.

As experts in commercialism we can see that a certain ad is quite ridiculous, but on some level these scenes become internalized. The ad would not be effective if we didn't have the same desires as the characters represented. It is now popular to sensationalize wealthy ne'er-do-wells celebrities and desire this same sort of selfish, careless lifestyle. Whether we think the ads are stupid or not, they reflect a certain cultural climate of distraction. This is much like how alcohol itself can be used, as a distraction.

These vodkas appeal to the youth market. With so many candy-like flavors, it would seem these brands are explicitly trying to recruit children as consumers of hard liquor

-whipped cream -marshmallow -smores -fruit loops -bubble gum -mt. Dew -super cola

A popular marketing tool is making ads similar to music videos. Rapid jump-cuts and montages keep the attention of someone who is bombarded daily with ADD inducing images (the MTV demographic). Combine this appeal to young viewers with the obvious sexualized situations inherent in alcohol advertising and we see the hypocritical paradox present in American pop culture. Ads portray the product as youthful, glamorous, fun and new. TV tells us that Kim Kardashian and Lil' Weezy are somehow worthy of our adoration. Killing our braincells with S'mores flavored liquor seems to fit right in with this view of the world!

studying the studies

Part of what is so interesting about the study of popular culture is the debate whether much of it is forced upon us, or whether we as a society, dictate what becomes popular. This is an awareness of culture industry and by whom it is controlled. Is the influential media made because of audience choice (from the bottom up) or from the elitist corporate market-makers (the top down)? 

This history of the study of popular culture ("The Rise of Popular Culture: A Historiographical Sketch," by LeRoy Ashby) shows that although there was a point in time where media may have been created purely from a "high-minded", powerful, Caucasian male framework, the audience is now directly involved in the creation of new markets and therefore new popular culture. Although capitalism is always the shining sun pouring down on any American mass-media, consumers approve of and participate in these markets. Is it simply wishful thinking to see this interplay as a “balance of producer planned consumption and consumer influenced production”? How do we prove this balance exists? 

American culture is interesting in many ways and although we may run the risk of a “lop-sided equation” when we document the struggle between producer and audience, this relationship shows how much of our lives, for generations now, are dictated by whom and who may take the more powerful, influential, and seemingly important places in our society.