Female Role Observation Googles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQ0gWMUo1xI&feature=youtu.be
Jake Morris
Samuel Contresas
Becca Wolfley
Jessica Schulenburg
Ashley Starling

Television's Realisitc Facade and Why We're Cool With It

We discussed in class the flaws of current "reality" shows. I put that in quotes because, as we agreed in class, it's all completely glamorized and scripted to some extent. Even if not scripted for the characters (yes, these people are characters), these shows share a common structure intentionally and strategically done to feed our own egos. Dudes, that's why we watch it.

We are consistently comparing our own lives to that of the Duck Dynasty and Honey Boo Boo clan. We like to think we are as humble as them, but not as humiliating. We can entertain and be fun like them, but without carelessness. These characters are conveyed as ignorant, aloof, and melodramatic, and that's entertaining because we're not, and happily so. These shows are structured to separate us from them, but intricately so as to still keep a grasp on relatability.

So, that's why we watch them. And we continue to do so because it's a vicious cycle: A "reality" show is produced, and for every time we watch it, it keeps re-producing, regardless of how many new conflicts have to be created or rebranding needs to be done.

The Over Analyzation of Princess Culture and the Impression of Binge Watching

In one of the article's on princess culture, the writer provides examples of women who have driven themselves into debt in an effort to live a princess-like lifestyle. The basis for this is that these women grew up influenced by the portrayal of princesses through animated media or dress-up products.

I think this connection is extremely loose. For example, I hardly watched the Disney princess movies, instead, I watched a lot of the ones with animals as main characters. Though I'd like to consider my self with characteristics like a fancy feline, I AM NOT AN ARISTO-CAT.  (meow)

It's silly to blame princess media and consumerism for the debt of these women. The influence of media is minimal compared to the actions executed inter-personally in everyday life. If anything, the portrayal of these princesses is puffery compared to a realistic perspective.

However, this is when I digress to propose the idea that the over-consumption of media, or binge watching, can heavily influence someone. People don't necessarily relate to the actions of a character, but more-so the character's personality. But actions and attitude go hand-in-hand. Enough sitting in front of the TV, absorbed in a television show, allows a viewer to develop a parasocial relationship with a character. We become separate from our own identity and enveloped in a fictional one.

In this sense, a person can become ignorant of the means, but do anything to reach the similar ends (lifestyles) of their favorite character.

So, what I'm getting at is, no, I don't think the princess culture is to blame for the debt these women are in, UNLESS they were glued to the telly watching these princesses everyday, enveloping themselves in a fantastic world and ignoring the reality of home-life. 

CHIPOTLE: Beyond the Burrito

     Chipotle put its stamp on the food movement when they released a short advert film last September. The film, called "The Scarecrow", is a phenomenal piece of animation accompanied by a classic "Pure Imagination" cover by Fiona Apple.
     The film conveyed Chipotle's strong position on anti-factory-farming as well as its passionate use of real vegetables and beef in its restaurants. The three-and-a-half-minute film (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUtnas5ScSE) absorbed audiences and was blasted on social media. Currently it has over 12 million views on YouTube. It's one of the greatest pieces of advertising I've ever seen.

     Nonetheless, it's advertising. At the end of the film there's fifteen seconds set aside to promote Chipotle's new game app, appropriately based on "The Scarecrow". The last fifteen seconds completely change the sympathetic feelings of the audience to indifferent or off-put. Yet, the resonating message of anti-factory-farming still holds stronger than the underlying commercial efforts of Chipotle.
     Chipotle's ad goes back to our lesson on taking advantage of cultural movements and the authenticity in commercialism. FunnyOrDie.com takes a stab at Chipotle by revealing the irony behind its commercial (see here: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/da66b8f1aa/honest-scarecrow). The question remains for the individual: Is Chipotle really passionate about the food movement, or is it just another corporate marketing tactic playing for profits?

     As a student of advertising, I'm very passionate about my field. I love the rhetoric involved in advertising; the way companies and their brands capture the consumer. It's a game. At the end of the day, it is for promotion and profits. However so, as a hopeful, empowered woman in the industry, I think it's important to show the audience, make them aware of the company's message or movements,  then to prove it.

Maybe Chipotle is proving its authenticity. I'd have to experience it first-hand to make a decision. Does anyone want to get a burrito?!?!

Olympic "Prop"aganda: A Prop, Indeed.

            Our lesson over authenticity in mainstream media and alternative media, more particularly news and blogging, respectively, was just a reminder to me of something I’ve been preaching for the past few weeks: propaganda and the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia.

            As I’m sure you are all familiar with, U.S. news stations were eager to report the latest malfunction in Putin’s beautiful disaster of an Olympic Village. Professional journalists were blasting social media and national television with stories of piss-colored water and holes-in-the-ground for toilets. I couldn’t tell you who won the latest luge or figure-skating round because the national news didn’t find priority in that.

            I recall an example of an Olympic skiing athlete subtly fighting the idea of propaganda.  I was watching the Today show while drinking coffee (morning routine) and an athlete who had somehow not been able to compete in the Olympics took an alternative route and became an acting journalist for the Today show. When asked about the assumingly bad slope conditions, the athlete was quick to deny the accusation, saying that the slopes seemed fine to her. How coincidental that I never saw that athlete report for the show again. I also couldn’t find her name or any clips of her while writing this post.

            My roommate, Kathie, recently visited Sochi to film some of the Olympic action. Though she did not stay in the Olympic village, she did get to go to a few events. On her return home, of course, my roommates and I were anxious to ask her about the living conditions. To no surprise by me, she had this to say about the news broadcasted in the U.S. “They took the worst parts of Sochi and broadcasted them as if they were normal. The community of Sochi was unconditionally welcoming.”

            Perhaps the finest example of propaganda fighting is the “Wolf in Olympic Village” prank pulled by Jimmy Kimmel. This is the perfect example of an eye for an eye. If the news skews our perception, we’ll skew theirs. You can see the example in its entirety here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hze_6-f5KNA.
            I can’t speak much for all the authenticity in blogging, but the idea that blogs can provide personal accounts or at least non-profit driven perspectives, should warrant more credit than normally given. Chew on this: Could it be that the mainstream media broadcasts a good portion of the negative context surrounding the credibility of blogging?

Tackling the Tornado of Technology: It's Alliterative, so You Know it's Real.

     I recently watched the documentary, Digital Nation (http://video.pbs.org/video/1402987791/), for a separate class, and it has a lot to do with our changing view and use of technology. The documentary details two opposing sides: those embracing the use of electronic technology in education and those who don't. In the latter case, professors and doctors studying the activity of students notice a decline in focusing on a single task. On the opposing side, a principal in an inner city school proves the incorporation of electronic technologies is beneficial. Test scores and attendance rise.
     The use of electronic technology, more specifically social media, has caused us to become multi-taskers. The issue arises then: How much is too much? When will the mass exposure to smart technologies take over our ability to critically think? When will communication through screens cause interpersonal (face-to-face) communication to be obsolete?
     It's all pretty scary. I think if we don't restrict ourselves from all the overexposure, especially access to it at a young age, we could become the society in Bradbury's, Fahrenheit 451, or Judge's film, Idiocracy. Back to the principal in the Digital Nation documentary, he's done something right, but what? College professors have proven the decline of high-test scores, and the lack of literate students, and doctors have proven the changing brain activity in students that multi-task. However, the principal of this elementary school turns over all the tables. He gives every student a laptop. From there, he makes sure that instructors are incorporating the use of it, as well as monitoring it. An example shown is of a teacher who has created a class blog for the learning of To Kill A Mockingbird. High restricted access and outside monitoring are controlled outside of the classroom.
     What I'm getting at, is that the use of electronic technologies, and the constant breaking away from single-task-focus is inevitable. The overexposure of mass media to us is like tackling a tornado of stuff; We have to take it all in somehow before we get swept behind.
     At a young age, we have learned and grown with the changing of technology. With that said, those younger than us and still growing do not know the progression of technology that we did. It's always been here for them, so they know no other norm. Educators ought to realize how we use technology and be able to transform that use. A prime example is McCauliff's encouraging the use of Twitter for class discussion. From there, we must learn to resist fear of confrontation, but rather embrace it. We need to be able to discuss and argue in front of others to keep from hindering further our interpersonal communication skills. Sure, give second graders a Chromebook, they already know how to use it, but don't use it for all assignments. Keep the foundations found on pencil and paper. Create limitations so that kids can learn a disciplined use of electronic technology. Okay, I think that's "all I got to say 'bout that."