In March of 2010, a South Korean warship mysteriously exploded and sank a few mies off the coast of North Korea. In May, a team of international investigators released a report claiming that the only plausible cause of the explosion was a torpedo from North Korea. In the days since this report has been released, the international world has been scrambling to figure out what to do. The US has always thought of itself as the protector of freedom throughout the world. As such, America has stated its support for South Korea and condemnation of North Korea. But many complications confront South Korea and the rest of the world on how to deal with this recent crisis.
One day after the release of the report, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated the US's stance on the situation: "It is important to send a clear message to North Korea that provocative actions have consequences". This message indicates that the US will support any reprimands that South Korea or the UN issues to North Korea. Including the recent trade sanctions against North Korea made by South Korea. This reaction makes sense in the myth of America as the defenders of peace. South Korea shares many similarities with the US (modernism, capitalism, democracy), and as such the media portrays them as the worthy victims in this incident. And on the flip side, the media portrays North Korea, the Communist, isolationist country, as the villain (as it has done in the past with North Korea's nuclear program).
But the problem with this approach of cutting off trade with North Korea and pursuing other countries to reprimand them is the poverty of the North Korean people. Starting in the late 90's, South Korean president Kim Dae Jung started the Sunshine Policy. This policy sought to ease relations on the peninsula by providing economic assistance to the North to promote peaceful coexistence, with the hopes that the North would ease its isolationist policies. However since the election of Lee Myung-Bak, the South has taken a harsher aid policy towards the North. And the recent sinking of the Cheonan, seems to indicate the end of this goodwill approach towards North Korea.
The myth of America as the defender of innocents and freedom has existed for years. And as a result, this myth affects how the media portrays events (as seen in the most recent conflict between North and South Korea). However, the reality of situations can be quite difference than the myth. The recent US supported trade sanctions made by the South against the North has been portrayed by the media as a positive. But the reality is that these reprimands could worsen the economic situation of millions of already impoverished North Korean citizens, while also destroying a decade of goodwill efforts.
Works Cited:
The New York Times "Attack Bares South Korea’s Complex Links to North"
The New York Times "Clinton Condemns Attack on South Korean Ship"
The New York Times "Pentagon and U.N. Chief Put New Pressure on N. Korea"
As the largest oil spill in US history continues to spew gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, Obama made a speech admitting his fault. Remorse filled the president's rhetoric, as he regretted allowing the oil industry to go unchecked and dragging his feet on reform. We've seen presidents receive criticism for scandals or how they've handled disasters before: Nixon and Watergate, Reagan and Iran-Contra, Clinton and Lewinsky, Bush and Katrina. And now we see Obama face attacks for how he is handling the oil spill. But what does the evidence have to say about what politicians say and what they really mean?
Obama speaks of regret for past mistakes and a renewed commitment to the future: "In case you’re wondering who’s responsible, I take responsibility...It is my job to make sure that everything is done to shut this down. That doesn’t mean it’s going to be easy. It doesn’t mean it’s going to happen right away or the way I’d like it to happen. It doesn’t mean that we’re not going to make mistakes...The federal government is fully engaged, and I’m fully engaged". Listening to these words, you may feel full of hope and belief that the government can save us.
Or (more rightly) you may be filled with skepticism. After all politicians are not known for their honesty nor their firm stance on issues. Take John McCain for example. He came under a lot of criticism during the presidential campaign for changing his stance on off shore drilling. Originally against it, McCain claims he changed his mind about the offshore drilling after observing how much Americans paid at the pump. Or maybe it was the campaign contributions that came pouring in after the announcement. Or that he was about to campaign in Texas, notorious for their pro-drilling stance. Even Obama himself, who once claimed to be against off-shore drilling, has changed his stance to ease America's independence on foreign energy. Not that their aren't massive oil lobbyists and industries at his back now.
Maybe Obama will bring change. I'm an optimist and I also love nature. And I would love nothing more than for this oil spill to stop, and have aid brought to the Gulf and regulation brought to the oil industry. But I'm not blind. I know that there is a long history of contradictions between what presidents promise and what they do. So while I've got my fingers crossed, I'm not getting my hopes up.
Works Cited:
The New York Times "Obama Offers Regret Mixed With Resolve"
The Washington Post "Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling"
“The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and previleges [sic], if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment.” – George Washington
The America as we know it today has always been a nation of immigrants. Except for the Native Americans, everyone in this country (or their ancestors) have immigrated to America at one point or another. On the one hand we love to circulate this myth of America as the glittering, golden city upon a hill (tracing origins back to the Puritans). But behind the rhetoric, behind this beautiful veil of diversity, lies the reality. While preaching the power and benefits of immigrants, America has passed legislation after legislation controlling and restricting movement into the country-- with the recent Arizona Senate Bill as the next chapter in a long, familiar saga.
Obama's rhetoric continues the myth that America is "the land of opportunity" that will always welcome immigrants into its borders. Obama suggests that America has always been this way, and that the entire world takes this myth as fact: "As a nation, as a people, we can choose a different future. A future that keeps faith with our history, with our heritage, and with the hope that America is always inspired in the hearts of people all over the world". We love the way this sounds, and as such we believe in Obama's words and the stories that have always told Americans that their land is the land of the free.
But despite this myth, whenever immigrants have entered the country, the are faced with opposition and resentment by those who consider themselves to be "natives". This resentment as led to a counter myth. This myth views illegal immigrants (especially Mexicans) as a problem and a threat to stability. The "native" opposition claims that illegals take welfare services like unemployment benefits, Social Security, food stamps, etc. as well as jobs away from natural born Americans. Furthermore, as Ted Hayes argues in his short piece "Illegal Immigration Threatens America", illegals damage America by refusing to assimilate with American culture and retaining their unique culture.
This counter myth of immigrants as a threat has been circulating for centuries and is made evident by immigration legislation. The Immigration Act of 1917 (also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act) established literacy tests for incoming immigrants and sought to limit the amount of asians entering the country. The 1921 Immigration Act established quotas for each country based on their numbers in the 1890 US census. Since there was very little diversity during that period, the quotas allowed for many Western European immigrants, while also restricting immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe. The 1965 Act abolished those 45 year old quotas, and established limits for each nation per year at 20,000 immigrants. And finally the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 fined industries for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants, but granted amnesty for illegal immigrants who had entered the country prior to 1982. And finally, Arizona passed a bill in 2010, which requires all immigrants to carry their documents and allows police officers to detain suspected illegals. This bill promotes racial profiling of Hispanic-Americans.
But this counter myth fails to acknowledge the fact that illegal immigrants have so often been welcomed into the US. The agricultural business of the southern states and California depends heavily on the cheap labor of illegal immigrants. As Rodolfo Acuna asserts in his book "Occupied America: A History of Chicanos", the US has often adjusted its policies towards illegal immigration based on the current economic condition: "The postwar period brought relatively good times that encouraged more Mexicans to enter the country. However, in 1949, an economic recession caused massive roundups of undocumented workers...The Korean War broke the recession...The end of the Korean War brought another recession, which served as an excuse for the brutal massive roundup of Mexicans". This pattern of flip flopping can be found today as the recession has caused states (like Arizona) to tighten their position on illegal immigration.
Evidence exists which discredits the claims made by those who scapegoat illegal immigrants for the country's economic problems. The US Department of Justice found in 1992, that less than 1% of the immigrants granted amnesty by the 1986 Immigration Act had benefited from or used Worker's compensation, Social Security, or unemployment benefits. And an even smaller number had received food stamps.
America believes itself to be the land of the free. It's in our national anthem, it's woven into the rhetoric of presidents from Washington to Obama, it's engrained in our media and in our very perception of who we are. And we tell ourselves that immigration represents this freedom. That anyone can come from anywhere and through hard work they can live the American dream. But the reality of the situation is that many Americans feel threatened by immigration, which gives rise to counter myths. These counter myths of illegals harming the US (both economically and culturally) have culminated in multiple laws, the one in Arizona being the latest. But in reality these fears have little truth, and the US and its industries simply exploits them to their benefit depending on the economic climate. As James Fallows asserts in his Atlantic Article "How America Can Rise Again", one of the things that will keep America competitive is "continued openness to immigration". It's what's made us the melting pot of the world, and it's will allow us to keep adapting and changing in the future.
During the long arduous voyage to the New World in 1630's, Puritan leader John Winthrop wrote a sermon that came to define and shape our view of America for years to come. Winthrop preached of the future morality and glory of their new society: "For we must consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us". America has from its very beginning as a nation been viewed as this special and pure utopia for the world to admired. But while the separatist movement of Puritanism never fully flourished as Winthrop hoped, their values of conservatism and morality still permeate through American culture today.
Take the Miss USA 2010 pageant winner Rima Fakih. One the one hand her story has been pressed into the mold of the "America as the land of opportunity" that we have told ourselves countless times. Born in Lebanon, moved to the United States, embraced America culture, and became Miss USA. Most media sources portray her story with this format. And it makes us feel good about America. That immigrants still flock to this country looking for opportunity, that they can succeed here with hard work, and one day rise to the highest ranks of things so uniquely American such as Miss USA.
But on the other hand, another story about Rima Fakih has been drawing much attention (and outrage). Pictures have surfaced of the 2010 Miss USA winner dancing on a stripper pole. At the age of 24, it is safe to assume that she has done things more sexual (as most people have by that age) than simply dancing on a pole. But this seems to violate the pure and moral image that we like to tell ourselves Miss USA represents (even though the entire pageant is all about the objectification of beautiful women).
Sexuality permeates every aspect of American culture. You simply can't listen to a song or watch television without it being everywhere. And thats necessarily a bad thing. But this idea of strong purity and morality in America is a myth that we love to tell ourselves again and again. Going back to Tocqueville and even further back to the Puritans. And even though the idea of strong morality and purity in America has very little grounding, we still like to believe its true and attack those in the spotlight (especially women) who break this image.
Immigration has been a hot issue for the past few years, and recently brought right to the foreground by Arizona's new immigration law. The law allows officers to demand to see legal papers or visas from anyone, whom they deem "looks like an immigrant". The law has sparked outrage from many different political groups, citing that the law promotes racial profiling. But this new development is just the newest chapter in the long story of US-Mexican immigrant relations.
Immigration has always been and will always be the life blood of America. Except the Native Americans, everyone's ancestors came to this country at one point or another. But people like to forget that fact and declare that they are the "true" Americans, while the newest wave of immigrants are somehow less deserving of living here. But immigrants bring with them new ideas, perspectives, and cultures which contribute to the unique quality of America.
American citizens often claim that immigrants threaten to take away their jobs by providing cheap labor. But during many points in history, the US has welcomed cheap labor from Mexican workers. During times of economic prosperity, such as post-WWII and during the Korean War, the US has eased restrictions on Mexican immigrants and allowed them to work in cotton fields in southern Texas. But during times of economic recession, the US has cracked down on Mexican workers. This happened during the recession of 1953-1955, during which time the US deported more than 2,000,000 Mexican workers. Many Mexican-Americans were caught in the chaos of these raids and deported back to Mexico, despite their US citizenship.
The US has a very bipolar and complex relationship with Mexican immigrants. When times are good, the US couldn't care less about the legal status of Mexican workers. But once the US hits a recession, like the one we are in now, laws are tightened up along with border security.
Works Cited:
Rodolfo Acuna's "Occupied America: A History of Chicanos"
Idealized, prewritten stories circulate throughout American culture, searching and looking for real life events to bend and shape to their image. The media idealizes and glorifies the power of sports every single day. From stories of determination and triumph, to falls from grace and redemptions. The press portrays sports as having the power to do all these things and more. But by looking at how the media portrays sports stories in other countries, perhaps we can shed light on the myths we tell ourselves about sports in America.
A recent New York Times article discussed the corruption in professional cricket in India. The Indian Premier League, created just three years ago, has grown into a multi-billion dollar a year industry. Bringing in movies stars and glamour to a sport mirrored on US professional sports, the league has also faced criticism for corruption. Indian politicians own cricket teams, while owners also sit on the board of directors for the league. The league has also been criticized for its immense glamour and excess, which seems to heighten the perceived disparity between the country's wealthy elite and masses of poor.
But if the media portrays sports in other countries as hypocritical, does it do the same for sports in the US? Not to the same extent. Sure, the press reports sports scandals and rumors everyday (Tiger Woods and Ben Roethlisberger being some of the most recent, highly publicized scandals). America takes these scandals so seriously because it threatens the ideals we tell ourselves about sports. Such as their wholesome, redemptive powers (exemplified by the stories told every Olympics). But there are many stories of corruption and hypocrisy in American athletics. For example the prevalence of performing enhancing drugs in sports (especially baseball). Or the fact that the NCAA has so many rules preventing student-athletes from making or accepting money, even as the organization itself reaps billions of dollars every year from those same student-athletes.
America is ripe with hypocrisy. But thats too depressing a thought to be accepted. So we create these ideals to blind ourselves to reality of things. But while these myths do help us cope with an all too often imperfect world, they can often fuel cover-ups and denials that prevent the truth from being known.
Works Cited:
The New York Times: "As Cricket Grew in India, Corruption Followed"
The New York Times: "Corruption In Big-Time Sports"
You may not be consciously aware of it, but if you open any newspaper in the country, the diction is filled with doom and foreboding. Every headline contains strong, fearful action words, even if the message is far from disastrous. As we saw in Media Studies last term, one headline read "Boston Escapes 2009 with No Fire Deaths". The actual story is positive, but the words in the sentence paint a picture of fate trying to get us, and we're lucky to be alive. But such dramatic headlines can be found all the time, for example by simply scrolling the New York Times webpage.
"A Volatile Day on Wall St. as Officials Seek to Calm Fears". This headline lures one into the story of the stock market's ups and downs over the past couple days. The stock market always goes up and down. That's how it works. But the headline makes the scene more disastrous than it actually is and that people fear another potential drop. The article itself goes even further than the headlines, and suggests that the stock market could face a similar disaster to the 2008 financial crash.
Other headlines trace the sequence of events leading up to the failed Times Square Bombing attempt, and the sebsequent speculations afterwards. While an attempted bombing is serious enough, nobody actually died. Bomb scares happen all the time, especially in major metropolitan areas like New York City. But if you look at the headlines, they try to bring up the same intense, fearful emotions felt by Americans during 9/11.
Every night on local news channels and in newspapers, similar stories and headlines like these cram the pages. But does this foreboding language actually create any fear? Or does it actually serve to numb us to these events? I know for one that almost nothing on the news shocks me anymore. Tragedy after tragedy occurs everyday, and many news outlites report them. But after awhile I feel like these events occur so commonly that it would be difficult on a person to let themselves be emotionally affected by them. And maybe that's the real tragedy, that our deepest sympathies can only be evoked by the most devastating catastrophies.
On April 20th, 2010 an oil tanker owned by BP caught fire, which killed 11 crew members, and then sank into the Gulf of Mexico. Adding to the human toll of this tragedy is the ensuing environmental damage and potential economic damage to the Louisiana Coast. So as crude oil gushes out into the gulf and engineers are scrambling to find a solution, one question remains: Who is accountable?
BP should be held accountable. Oil is spilling out of the damaged well at a rate of over 200.000 gallons per day. Eventually at a number that high, its magnitude is hard to comprehend. But what can be comprehended is the fact that this will have serious repercussions for the businesses and wildlife in the Gulf region. In an area still reeling from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, this disaster has the potential to land another blow to the region. The wetlands are an incredibly delicate ecosystem with numerous endangered species and millions of gallons of oil will surely harm this area. If the wildlife of the Gulf are affected by this oil spill, then so will many industries and businesses. In an area where fisheries are prevalent, the economic damage could compound the already tough financial situations of many families.
But of course BP will not be held accountable. Despite the rhetoric of many politicians, the government cares more about large industries than average citizens. Large corporations like BP pull in billions of dollars a year. And with that money they can pay for campaigns and lobbyists to ensure that they have the legislators in their pocket. Even the media is beginning to change its view about this disaster. The initial reports used the typical action and doomsday language of the media. But stories, like a recent one from the New York Times, remind readers that this is far from the worst oil spill in history. Eventually the media will move on from this story to others it can impose its narratives on, like the failed bombing in Times Square. And once it does the attention of the general public will move on as well. But the damage and repercussions will remain. And the people affected by it will demand for justice as BP gets off the hook.
Works Cited:
CNN "BP to try unprecedented engineering feat to stop oil spill"
The New York Times "Gulf Oil Spill Is Bad, but How Bad?"
So far this term we have taken a few different looks at the definition of American women, but very few concerning the definitions of manhood. So what does it mean to be an American man? Tocqueville offers a few different ideas, while old rules of chivalry also shape our definition of manhood. But as journalists like Susan Faludi point out, often our definitions of manhood are merely myths that have little truth in modern reality.
In the later chapters of book 3 of "Democracy in America", Tocqueville asserts his observations on the ambition of American men. The destiny of sons in America differs quite sharply from their counterparts in aristocratic nations. In an aristocratic nation the first born son inherits all the property from the father. Upon his father's death, he assumes the mantle of patriarch and leads the family in all of its affairs. Fate condemns the subsequent sons to a much more harsh life. These sons inherit no property and are left to either make their way in the military or to serve the eldest brother. But in America there are no such predetermined fates. A son can always throw off the shackles of his father's class and make his way in the world. Tocqueville asserts that the ability to become more successful than one's father and the freedom delivered by revolution drive this incredible ambition of men found in America.
Chivalry also impacts our view of manliness. The concept of an honor-bound knight has been immortalized in countless tales. In these legends, a man is someone who serves with the utmost loyalty and fights bravely even in the face of uncertainty and death. He always saves the helpless damsel and slays the dragon.
But Susan Faludi points out many flaws in the media's attempt to overlay these chivalric, macho ideals on top of real stories. In the frantic search for any stories to fit their myths, magazines all across America hailed Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield as the new ideal of masculinity. Having very few actual examples of bold, male rescuers saving distraught women, magazines forced Rumsfield and Bush to fit this revived mold of "the cowboy of yesterday". The media hailed fireman as the most desirable men in the country, while the government hosted banquet after banquet. But in this aftermath many firemen grew to resent all of this attention, while the strides made in previous decades by firewomen were cut back.
So what do the societal forces in America have to say about being a man in modern times? Is it defined by one's ambition and individuality as it had been in America during the 1800's? Or is it this revived definition of male strength and honor that harkens back to the days of knights. As Faludi argues, the post 9/11 media believe the latter.
From the early days of colonization, America has been known as the land of greatness and freedom. "A City upon a hill", as Puritan leader John Winthrop called it, has been an analogy used to describe America for centuries. But the reality of life in America is that people are not free to do whatever they please or become whomever they want to become. The underlying cultural currents and ideas of gender dominate and shape our lives from the moment we are born. And the ideals that we like to believe about American womanhood and the reality of gender ideas are often in stark contrast.
Alexis Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" has been a dominant force in shaping our ideas of gender and freedom in America ever since its publication in the mid 19th century. Tocqueville asserts that women in America are more free than in any other nation. Released from the bonds of male dominated aristocracies, American women are educated and exposed to world their entire lives. This enables them to make rational choices in marriage, which contribute to the good morals of the country as a whole. Also this rationality disillusions them from the romantic ideals of marriage and love and allows them to persevere through any strain on their marriage. As a whole, America loves to celebrate the ideas of Tocqueville, commend ourselves on our gender equality, and respect the roles of our determined women.
But the reality of gender equality harshly contradicts Tocqueville's ideals, as Susan Faludi asserts in "The Terror Dream". Faludi asserts that in the aftermath of 9/11, feminists, female journalists, and women in general became a scapegoat for the media. Feminists were accused of feminizing our men, and that somehow equality of the sexes equaled vulnerability to terrorist plots. Journalists who spoke out against the overbearing media themes of masculine patriotism were subjugated to immense criticism and backlash, as in the case of Susan Sontag. And even if female journalists conformed to the media's message, their voices were slowly silenced, as was the case for many women in op-ed pieces.
So what does it mean to be a women in America? Like many other questions about human identity it is one that is too complex to ever be answered accurately or completely. American women are bombarded from every corner about the definition of womanhood. Tocqueville's assertions idealize democracy and equality in America, while the mass media often portray a much different image. Perhaps to answer this question, we must keep in mind that there is no absolute answer and we have be aware and differentiate between the stories we tell ourselves and the reality of life.
Don't let the title of this post fool you, there isn't a whole lot. Tocqueville asserts that in the United States women are treated with more reverence and equality than in Europe. First and foremost, women are educated in America and exposed to the world from an early age. They are armed with reason, not just religion, to guide their judgement. American women choose their marriages for love but do so with rationality. Tocqueville believes that this contributes to stability of marriages and the high morals found in America. Also, women persevere through any conditions. As a result of these strong characteristics, Tocqueville asserts that women are treated with reverence and with equality by their male counterparts. While men and women preform separate tasks, American society acknowledges and respects the role of women.
Yet somehow, the American society of the 1950's, as portrayed in "Mad Men", differs from Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". The first example is this reverence towards the role of women and the respect for their roles. Peggy's coworkers treat her, along with every other women in the office, as a mere sex symbol. The men in the office constantly hit on her and make sexual innuendo after sexual innuendo. The relationship of Don and Betty calls into question Tocqueville's belief in marriage as a love filled, yet rational union. Don commits in extramarital affairs, while his wife deals with the children in the suburbs. Don does not respected the equality of his wife or her role in their marriage. He treats her like he treats his children. When he comes home from work to find that his wife got into an accident, he asks if it their daughter was acting out, as if his wife cannot control their kids. Also when Betty returns from the psychiatrist, Don calls up the doctor to find out what's going on. The way they discuss Betty and her session is like two fathers talking about a little girl.
Tocqueville's "Democracy in America" has influenced American's perception of gender roles and marriage for centuries. But the reality of the matter is that his assertions idealize that which is inherently imperfect: humans and their relationships. "Mad Men" portrays the vast disparity between the way men and women are treated in the 1950's as well as the confusion that comes as people struggle with these American ideals.
When one speaks of "traditional American values" our minds immediately bring up images of white picket fences, rows of identical suburban homes, and the good old fashion family togetherness of the 1950's. But as revealed to us by books like Stephanie Coontz's "The Way We Never Were" and shows like "Madmen", the quintessential, happy, American family of the 1950's was merely a facade -- crafted and perpetrated partially by the sitcoms of the era. "Madmen" portrays a much different image of what family life was like in the 1950's, and gives us a different perceptive with which to view that era.
In the 1950’s, the prevailing consensus (or propaganda if you will) was that getting married young, cranking our babies, and living a family-focused life in a homogenous community would bring you a happy, fulfilled existence. Shows like “Leave it to Beaver” assert just those thoughts. The parents are incredibly involved in their children’s lives. When Wally joins the football team in the episode “The Shave”, it becomes the focus of the family’s attention for the first portion of the show. Then once he starts feeling self-conscience about his lack of facial hair, the entire family becomes involved until the “problem” is resolved. At the end of the episodes, a moral lesson is learned and the family is happy.
But the dynamics at work in “Madmen” are completely different than those of 1950’s sitcoms. While the young men in the office are getting married young (like Pete Campbell), it isn’t viewed as the means to happiness. On the contrary, the boys joke around that it is something of a death sentence. And while both Don and Betty think that they have it all (a wonderful home, kids, money), neither of them are truly happy.
The sanctity of marriage and how it is treated is also something that differs between “Leave it to Beaver” and “Madmen”. In “Leave it to Beaver” the mother and father would never divorce, let alone admit that the family is unhappy. And forget about any mention of adultery. In “Madmen” divorce still carries a stigma, but marriage isn’t treated with the same reverence as in ‘50’s shows. Every guy in the office sleeps around, regardless of his marital status. Don alternates nights at home with Betty and with Mig in the city. And the night before Pete Campbell’s wedding, the only thing on his mind is sleeping with another woman.
Both of these shows are works of fiction. Neither of them can ever completely or accurately portray the families of the era, since generalizing every family even within a specific demographic is impossible. But media can carry a lot of power. “Leave it to Beaver” and similar shows have been so ingrained in our minds and culture that they’ve slowly become accepted as a truthful portrayal of that time period. But shows like “Madmen” help us to remember that things were never that simple and wholesome. The human condition is one that is defined by complexity, contradictions, and struggle. And this needs to be remembered whenever one is talking about “traditional American values” and the 1950’s.
When I first saw this commercial, I was more than a little confused. I didn't immediately realize whose voice was speaking or what was going on. But after listening to the buzz surrounding this ad from ESPN and on the internet, I began to get an idea about what this ad is doing, how Nike is trying to rebuild Tiger's brand, and how the media portrays real life stories.
We all know that literary stories and themes can't be superimposed onto real life. When you're sad and it starts raining outside, its not some pathetic fallacy. It rains because the water in the clouds has become dense enough to fall. Nor can almost mythic tales of redemption and heroism be placed onto real stories in sports. But somehow that doesn't stop the media from trying. In this ad, Tiger isn't the womanizing, out of control adult that we've come to realize he is. He's a child facing his father who has to explain himself. When Nike put up this ad, it was right before the Masters. For the past few months Tiger has attested to the fact that he is a changed man. He claims he was a victim of sex addiction and for the past few months he has made strides to improve himself. And if Tiger was to win the Masters, the media would have portrayed the victory as a sign from the gods of their approval. It would complete this tale of fall from greatness, redemption, and the return to the top.
But he didn't win. So that left the media struggling for a story for all of about two seconds. Because the man who did win was Phil Mickelson. He is painted as the perfect family man. Three children, happily married for 13 years, and no known scandals or affairs. His wife is undergoing treatment for breast cancer, and the tearful, emotional embrace after his victory seems to confirm that family values will always triumph at the end of the day.
But things are not always as they seem. While the media is telling this tale of Phil Mickelson's devotion to his family and the power of family ideals, we never know if this is really true. After all, didn't Tiger Woods build a reputation, brand, and an empire on just those images? And if Tiger had won, it wouldn't have redeemed him or absolved him of his sins. I don't care how many public apologizes he makes or how many times he attests to his changes. Trust can only be rebuilt through years and years of actions and commitment and maybe Tiger can never build back what he has lost. The media likes to bend the facts in order to fit some overarching story. But keep in mind, real life rarely fits those stories perfectly.
While sitcoms have always sought to ease our stress and provide light comic relief through awkward situations and events, they can also be a commentary on the values of the time. 1950's comedies portrayed a strong, knowledgeable father figure, a docile, selfless wife, and respectful children. These shows expressed the values of '50s and the idea of what it meant to be a family in that era. ABC's new sitcom, "Modern Family", may one day become the authority of what it meant to be a family in 2010. And the ideas of what constitutes a family now differ a lot from those in years past.
First and foremost, the idea of family portrayed in "Modern Family" is incredibly broad and diverse. In the '50s a family was strictly a heterosexual male married to a heterosexual female with their biological children. In the three families in "Modern Family" you have a "traditional family", a gay couple with an adopted, asian baby, and a old man living with his (much) younger wife and stepson. The father figures in two of the families try to portray some of the ideals of a "traditional" father. Phil likes to think of himself as a funny guy who always has a pearl of wisdom for every situation, but as thing get bad in the episode "Game Changer" he regresses back to childhood memories and actions. Jay likes to think of himself as more intelligent and skilled in chess than his wife and stepson, but they are actually only let him win to keep him from throwing a fit. These shows represent very different family dynamics and realities than their 1950's counterparts. The parents are the bumbling idiots in these cases, and often hold differing views than their partners. The children are the ones who are usually right in most situations and have to deal with their parents' mistakes.
"Modern Family" portrays families as quite different than "Leave it to Beaver" does. In some ways its better. "Modern Family" acknowledges that the meaning of family is quite broad and diverse. It doesn't have to be a mom, a dad, and a couple of kids. It also shows extended families as very close, which is something that was unusual for '50's families. But in other ways its worse. For one the plot of "Game Changer" shows a world where happiness is dependent on what you own. And as unrealistic as the "family togetherness" was of "Leave it to Beaver" at least it's a better message than materialism. Whether other episodes of "Modern Family" will follow this trend of cobranding remains to be seen. But the fact of the matter is that the ideas of family portrayed in sitcoms in 2010 are much different than those of the '50's.
As Stephanie Coontz asserts in "The Way We Never Were", "A contradiction in terms of earlier periods, the child-centered family took its place at the center of the postwar American dream". The Leave It to Beaver episodes portray the ideals of the 1950's family, the gender roles, and the relationship between parents and their children. But at the center of the shows "The Shave" and "Double Date" the children struggle with (and often rush) the transition to manhood.
The family dynamic of the ideal 1950's family is clear: the father at the head, followed by the mother and children. While the father is quite involved with his children's personal lives and issues at home, the idea of separate spheres is still prevalent. The mother stays home all day housekeeping while the father goes off to work to prove his worth as breadwinner. The mother in Leave It to Beaver also frequently talks about dinner parties that they will be attending, who will be there, and what her husband should wear. Clearly this relates back to the idea that the ideal 1950's wife should not have her own career, but merely help further her husband's through social events and connections. Also the ideal mother is characterized as very protective and constantly worrying, as shown when Wally makes the freshman football team in "The Shave". But the father is incredibly interested and proud of his son's athletic achievements.
In the last two minutes of both episodes, the story comes to a nice moral finish. Everything resolves itself and the boys learn a good lesson about life. But I found it strange that the lesson learned by Wally in "The Shave" and by Beaver in "Double Date" were almost exactly the same: don't grow up to quickly. The boys revere masculinity. Its a huge accomplishment when a boy starts to shave, symbolizing his transition into adulthood. Wally's feelings of insecurity over his lack of facial hair causes him to rush the process, trying to shave when he doesn't need to. But in the end he learns that its more important to be a man on the inside. Beaver feels this need to prove he isn't a child anymore in "Double Date", by taking a girl out to the movies. But in the end his bravado fails him as he admits that he is too afraid to take her out.
Both episodes tell their audiences that they shouldn't grow up to quickly. Preserve this innocent family ideal for as long as you can, because trying to rush it will only cause problems. But beneath that these episodes say even more about the 1950's through what they don't say. The biggest problems in this family is that the boys want to grow up and aren't ready. Those aren't really important problems. The family is portrayed as perfectly happy and doesn't acknowledge the fact that family or marriages could be plagued with stress and problems. Maybe these shows were necessary in a time of incredible fear from a nuclear war and American people needed an escape into a more simple world. But the fact that these shows created unreal, perfect families without addressing real problems only served to hurt their audiences and create incredibly high expectations.
Brands go to great lengths to transcend their physical products and become an interwoven part of the culture. As a result, many brands have become an integral part of people's identities and lives. The phenomenon known as Harry Potter is a perfect example of this transcendence. It has evolved from a mere children's book to a multidimensional and multimedia industry. People wait for hours on the opening night of a new book or movie. Harry Potter toys, books, DVDs, fly off the shelves. It has become a theme park ride at Universal Studios Orlando. And at a recent college tour at Georgetown, the tour guide made sure to explicitly point out that Healy Hall looks like Hogwarts. The line between the Harry Potter brand and culture has been purposefully blurred. But this has created a problem between eager fans running websites and writing fan fiction and the companies (like Warner Bros.) who own the intellectual property. Multiple lawsuits are being brought against fan created sites, but there is a clear difference between the innocent ones and the guilty ones. The first are fan fictions sites. While these sites may draw on the books for inspiration, they are mostly non-profit organizations. These sites aren't looking for financial gain, but to promote the creative writing skills of children. Also these sites allow children to create a fantasy world where they can sort through some of their real life problems. These sites also don't detract from the profits of Warner Bros. and if anything they vitalize and build up excitement about the brand which leads to higher sales. The other types of sites are those like "The Harry Potter Lexicon". This site was originally a non-profit that provided an encyclopedia of Harry Potter characters and events along with analysis. But the creator and RDR Books attempted to publish a print version for profit. After this, a lawsuit was brought against them by J.K. Rowling, who was also planning on writing a Harry Potter encyclopedia. This example differs extremely from the fan fiction websites, as the purpose is to make a profit. So who owns culture? Historically it has been something that belongs to the people. Traditions, holidays, values, beliefs. Those things are intangible and can't be owned by an individual or corporation. But that has changed since brands, which are owned and copyrighted, have become the culture. In my opinion, people are still the ones who should own the culture. If they want to develop, expand, and immerse themselves into a brand (like Harry Potter) then they have the right to do so. But the line is crossed when people try to exploit that for their own personal gain. Companies are facing a challenging time. They don't know who to sue or where things like fan fiction are going so they sue everything they perceive as a threat. In a few decades, precedents will be in place to determine when copyright infringement occurs. But until then companies must use logic to determine who gets sued and who doesn't.
Works Cited:
The New York Times "Rowling to Testify in Trial Over Potter Lexicon"
Capitalism is based on the premise of free markets and competition. If you have multiple companies competing with each other, then eventually a higher quality product will be produced. The problem with this is that massive corporations hate competition. They undermine their prices, it hurts their profits, and if they don't have a monopoly then they can't determine the price of a product. As a result, businesses do anything to maintain their control over a product. Namely, lawsuits.
Recently Apple brought a lawsuit against HTC, a maker of smartphones. Apple is claiming that HTC violated multiple patents of their iPhone. This lawsuit is less about battling HTC and more about fighting Google, whose Android operating system is used by HTC. By suing Google's affiliates in the phone industry, Apple is hoping to limit Google's spread into the smartphone industry.
Visually speaking, both of these phones are very similar. They are both thin, portable, and use touch screen technology. Even their capabilities are similar. They can both surf the web, use GPS, are voice controlled, etc. As Henry Jenkins stated in "Convergence Culture" the hardware is diverging, but the software is converging. This is a perfect example. Both of these phones do basically the same thing, but by bring about this lawsuit, Apple is hoping to keep the hardware from diverging too quickly.
Works Cited:
The New York Times "Apple Sues Nexus One Maker HTC"
We have read about the wave that is crashing through the media landscape. As Henry Jenkins asserts in his book "Convergence Culture" that the hardware is diverging but the content is converging. More and more, our devices are able to do the same things. Media itself has also taken this route of multimedia convergence. Social networking sites like Facebook are a perfect example of this. You can post videos, links, text, pictures, and even play games. These sites are insanely popular with Facebook having more than 400 million members. But despite this popularity, these sites have not found a way to be profitable as their advertising methods struggle.
When you log onto your Facebook account, there is constantly a column of ads on the right side of your screen. Over the past few years I have noticed that these ads have become increasingly more targeted. Multiple ads target me specifically for my music taste, interest in rock climbing, and for my age. While these ads do get my attention, they leave me with an uneasy feeling. Almost as if Facebook knows too much about me and that they are able to sell that information to other companies. Other ads seem so off topic and bizarre that I am turned off by them at the very beginning. According to a recent New York Times article, advertisers strive so hard to make their ads eye-popping and relevant that they end up making the ads too well targeted, thus turning off the potential customer. The vice president of business development at Facebook, Dan Rose, predicted that the quality of the ads on the site will improve as time passes and more business get involved.
People are incredibly susceptible to advertising. But people don't like to be aware that they are so susceptible nor do they like it when advertisers try to hard to target them. The immense amount of information on Facebook has been taken advantage of by advertisers. But ads struggle to find a balance between being too specific and too off color. Maybe the quality of these advertisements will change, but until then companies will struggle to turn Facebook into a revenue machine.
Works Cited:
The New York Times "Ads Posted on Facebook Strike Some as Off-Key"
If we've learned anything in the past couple months, its that the media landscape is changing. A wave is barreling down on old media corporations, and when it meets them they must either adapt and ride it or be swept away to the undercurrents of history. One example of this transition is advertisements. Old techniques of selling a product no longer work to the desensitized consumer. To effectively move them, you must create ads that pull at their heartstrings. The success of advertisements during the recent Winter Olympic games exemplifies this new landscape in which new commercial strategies are clashing with the old.
You would have to be made of stone for that commercial not to move you. It epitomizes everything that the Olympics stand for (or at least what the media has told us they stand for). Courage, redemption, victory. Its that wholehearted, family friendly feeling that companies love to associate with themselves. And Visa isn't necessarily selling you anything, but the idea that Visa is linked with all of these powerful emotions.
Here's another good example of new affective marketing
Just look at the faces of all the athlete's as they accept those medals. You can see their emotions, all the hard work they've put in for that one moment. How all that sacrifice was worth it. In this commercial, Coke isn't an evil, self-serving corporation. They're allowing these Olympic dreams to come true. And if you buy their product, you're not just lining the pockets of those greedy executives, you're helping those athletes realize they're dreams too.
After watching the first two commercials, this one doesn't quite do it for me. It's not really selling you any emotion, so those strong feelings aren't going to be conjured up when you see McDonald's. It employs some famous athletes to sell their products, which is typical of old media strategies. But I mean really! Are we supposed to believe that Olympic athletes eat at McDonald's?
Old advertising methods used to be successful. Stick a famous athlete on some Wheaties boxes and BAM! You're guaranteed to make some money. But it reaches a point where we have to question some intentions. Do athletes only do these commercials for the money? Everybody has emotions and as such they are susceptible to affective marketing. In the years to come these are the advertisements that will be the most successful and will eventually become the norm.
"Don't be evil". This is Google's famous slogan, but even after all we've read I'm still pretty skeptical. After all, I'm studying US history and if there is anything I've learned most large companies are evil and they don't get to be monopolies by listening to their morals. But after a recent hacking incident, Google threw down a challenge to the Chinese government, refusing to play along with their censorship policies anymore. This seemed like a really good, ethical move that I'm not used to seeing in companies. And after reading a recent article, comparing the way other internet companies are responding to China's censorship, I find myself thinking that maybe there is some truth to Google's slogan after all. Take Amazon for example. On the surface it seems very similar to Google. Massive internet based company that offers its services in many foreign countries. Also like Google, they operate in China. But unlike Google, they submit to Chinese laws and censorship. As a recent article in The New York Times reported, any searches on Amazon.cn about former Communist Leader and democratic sympathizer Zhao Ziyang, the Dalai Lama, censorship in China, etc will bring up nothing. Amazon says that it must respect the laws of the countries it does business in. Other internet companies, as well as human rights groups, investors, educational institutions, etc, are part of the Global Network Initiative. This coalition, which includes Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google, have agreed upon a set of human rights including challenging foreign countries and their governments to defend freedom of speech and unlimited access to information. Microsoft, however, has taken the same defense as companies like Amazon, claiming that they must obey the laws of the companies in which they operate. This raises a paradox for many companies who have joined the Global Network Initiative yet continue to submit to foreign censorship. Nobody can be completely good. Despite good intentions, some actions inevitably carry with them harmful consequences. Who knows if Google can be completely guided by ethics in years to come as they face changing leadership and the eventual decline in profits. But for right now Google does seem to be making some good, moral decisions, at least in comparison to their peers. And at least its a step in the right direction.
