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.