Let me start this off by saying I'm not a gamer. I can barely navigate my way through a game of Mario Cart. Because of this, I am disconnect from the media and able to look at it more objectively.
Grand Theft Auto is a wildly popular game played by men and to a lesser account, women, of all ages. My 60 year old uncle got it for his birthday a couple of years ago. Last Thanksgiving I was playing and he advised me to kill the prostitutes because they have all the money. I was hugely surprised to hear him tell me to kill prostitutes! I don't think I got far enough in the game to even do that.
Grand Theft Auto is a very controversial in conservative circles. People are quick to defend it saying it doesn't make kids go out and steal cars and rob people. The effects, as are most media effects, manifest themselves much more subtly. I believe Ruddock's cultivation theory, which "interprets media violence as demonstrations of social power" (67), is a great explanation of media effects in society. The violence in internalized and manifested in behavior. Violence in GTA is not expressed outwardly, but rather in the way people view the world. That the culture we live in accepts violence against women as a natural and inevitable is proof of this.
The images we see in GTA of women are shallow and objectified. As discussed in the group presentation, the entire function of women in the newest game is to be dated, in order to have sex, or as prostitutes. What does this mean for the boys and men who play this game?
I was at my friend's apartment while they were playing and I took a go at it. I was driving around (hitting fire hydrants because I can't steer) and I saw a prostitute on the street so I pulled over and taking my uncles advice, proceeded to beat the prostitute. While I was doing this I felt absolutely horrible! I couldn't believe people actually did this in the game on the regular. The experience actually still somewhat haunts me. Ironically, she had no money and her pimps shot me dead after the beating.
People who play this game often and passionately must not care that women are actually forced into prostitution and are often beaten, robbed, or killed. So it's ignorant to say that people are not influenced by video games such as these. Again, the game doesn't drive people to steal cars and beat women but it makes the issues acceptable within society.
Where does society find it's dominant views? Many believe we inherit our core values from family, school, church, and our friends. People don't generally think of the media as influential upon of our core values. The media plays an intricate part in our lives, just think about how much time we spend surrounded by it!
How many of us can name all these characters but not two members of the Supreme Court, your Senators or Secretary of State?
Our media has taken on the job of driving the public to conform with the political, social and economic status quo. Nothing is asked of viewers. Television is not interactive. We sit, listen, consume, never question. While the "aim" of our media system is to educate and inform citizens, actuality has shown us the real goal of our media system is to make money by selling viewers to advertisers. What role does this play in society?
Lazarfeld feels this type of media has the effect of "narcotizing dysfunction". Meaning television viewers, especially in terms of the news, mistake knowing about a problem without acting on it. People who know about a problem yet do nothing to resolve it might as well not know about it at all. Everybody in society knows about global warming but how many people have done anything at all to show their disapproval of it, besides maybe a casual conversation. Americans, especially within the younger generation, spend countless hours consuming media without reacting to anything. I'm guilty of it as well. I read the news online and while much of what I read disturbs me I have not been drawn to act upon my anger. I have not written a letter to my Congressman or Senator about what I want to see come out of the Copenhagen Climate Summit, I have not written about my support of public health care, I have not written about the failure of our school systems to include provocative information and an unbiased account of history in curriculum. But I have updated my Face Book status 5 times this week, scanned numerous blogs about irrelevant pop culture, fashion, and cute animals. The worst part about doing this is that I know it's an udder waste of time! Yet I hit the Stumble button again and again.
Why is it that our generation sees fit to consume without reaction? Our parents burned their bras and revolutionized women's rights, hitch-hiked to Woodstock, protested Vietnam in the streets and on campus, marched in support of Malcolm and King! What have we done? Absolutely nothing! Well, that's a lie. People really seem to be into bumper stickers, shirts with peace signs on them and reusable coffee mugs or water bottles (again with bumper stickers on them). Is this an acceptable substitute for action? I think the answer is obvious. But am I going to go out after my finals and scream out that America has in fact become a major terrorist force in this world in front of the Student Union? Probably only if I was drunk. But then again, those hippies were all drugged up.. maybe that's why Nixon started throwing money at the black hole that is the war on drugs.
The cause of this dysfunction lies within the media itself. In what we are shown, what is glamorized, what is scorned. What is glamorized is conformation, Twittering, American Idol, celebrity news such as Tiger Wood's infidelity. Looking at the FoxNews website, which I'm using for obvious reasons, top stories for the day are police protestor disputes at the Copenhagen Summit; which fucntions to ignore what is actually going on there. Second was a blurb on a mentally disturbed man who reached the doors of the hospital at which Italian Prime Minister Silvio Burlusconi is recovering. They do not cover malcontent for his rule or the protests against Burlusconi.
In defense of Fox News I present Jon Steward describing the persecution Fox endures by the crazy liberals.
Here, especially in the first section about protesters a clear frame of what is and is not a legitimate issue to protest. Public option health care: a nobel cause to protest, who are we to rob the insurance and drug companies of their much deserved billions. If you can't pay $60,000 to have the tip of your finger reattached (as in Sicko) you probably didn't really need that finger tip anyways. If it was worth it, wouldn't have helped you earn that amount in order to protect itself? Lets ignore the fact that the average American makes less than $30,000 a year. War protesters on the other hand are raving lunatics who cannot control themselves.
Programs such as FOX (although an extreme example it's certainly not the only one) provide a frame for acceptable discourse. Under these provisions, certain things are acceptable to be outraged about, while others certainly are not. This makes the regular American question their dissenting views. After the 9-11 attacks and the rally for war, there were protests all over the world disputing the need for war, claiming and eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. These were not aired on popular American news programs, rather the people saw calls for war and revenge.
Web images such as these, if shown in mainstream media would have severely damaged the war efforts and were therefore excluded from mainstream media coverage. This allowed a singular discourse to surround war coverage. While there are those who disagree and act on their discontent, they are absent from media portrayals, creating the idea among the average viewer that although people may be upset with society, they are not angry enough to act. So viewers do not act. If the American media had some good old fashioned coverage of protests the our system of democratic dictatorship would be in serious trouble.
Our society generally connotes propaganda with evil forces, such as fascism. It is not so widely known that we are exposed to, if not influenced by propaganda on a regular basis.
It would not be a far stretch to say that nearly every aspect of the culture we consume (TV, radio, newspapers, etc.) contain propagandistic ideas. This may not be an overt goal of media producers but I would say, given the role media plays in shaping what the public looks at. Propaganda is used to achieve a consensus of ideals within a society. Weather creating support for war, hatred for Jews (or in America's case, Blacks..) or a love for consumerism, media tends to shape, or limit, public opinion through homogenization of content. We see this in the concentrated ownership of media. In the 1950's, there were around 50 companies controlling American media. Many in that time saw this as too limited a scope of ownership and were deeply concerned about openness and accessibility to media outlets. Since the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which, in it's stated purpose sought to deregulate ownership in order to "let anyone enter any communications business" and to "let any communications business compete in any market against any other" (FCC.gov). In reality it has allowed for a concentration of ownership to the very wealthy, resulting in five major corporations owning most of the means of media production and distribution. Now what does this mean in the context of propaganda? What it means to me is that very few people control what a very large number (i.e. all of America) watch, read, or listen to, on a daily basis. When mass media first emerged, and often through it's evolution, "moral panics" over content and the effect of it on society, specifically children, occurred. I find it puzzling that the moral panics of today have not evolved into questions of the power of concentrated media ownership, rather remain seated in old school conservative values.
I believe the concentration of media ownership results in a form of propaganda where all we see and hear is shaped by a select few. In their article "Mass Communication, Popular Taste and Organized Social Action", Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton discuss the three conditions of successful propaganda. These traits can be applied to the way our media functions, allowing us to view media as a widely accepted form of propaganda. The first is monopolization: the idea that a message is most successful with a lack of counter propaganda. To support this we can point back to the fact that there are only five companies controlling nearly all media content!! Canalization of ideas is the secondary step in this model. Canalization is the idea of pushing and molding existing attitudes into a desired direction. Given the consistency of media in it's white, middle class, misogynistic depictions of "American life", it is safe to say canalization of ideas is in full effect in our media. Lastly, supplementation acts to solidify the effects of monopolization and canalization with face to face reiteration of ideas. This comes in the form of advertisements we face and the social norms our peers impose upon us. A high school is the perfect example of this, where anyone perceived as weird, strange or different was socially outcast. At the same time, the coolest kids in any school were generally those who fit a mold which was reflected in media. I believe that while in many ways, Lazarsfeld and Merton are right on and our society deeply fulfills each of the traits for successful propaganda, the existing method of media control of opinion may be in trouble!
How can this be and who is doing this?!?! Why, the very medium you are using right now, the internet (of course)!! The internet, especially in it's participatory function (blogs, forums, YouTube, etc.) has opened an entirely new realm in which to challenge media power.
I would like to further examine the in the context of last years Proposition 8 campaign in California. Prop 8 was a bill seeking to "protect marriage" in the state of California. Really, it was a campaign to revoke existing law which acknowledged the right to gay marriage in California. Propaganda was employed on both sides, and both took to the internet to do so. Numerous websites popped up on both sides and video clips and ads are abundant on sites like YouTube.
This example of a Yes ad, aired in California, used the scare tactics typical to traditional propaganda.
This is a grassroots anti-prop 8 ad modeled after popular Mac v. PC ads. It was very effectual in portraying supporters as a threat to liberty.
Although the no (pro-gay rights) side may have reached a large audience, garnering nation wide support, Proposition 8 was passed in the November 2008 state elections.
I don't know if I want to call Prop 8 the mainstream ideal, it's plain disheartening. But apparently in the state of California, home of one of the nation's most thriving gay communities, it is. Homophobic fears were magnified by those interested in "protecting the sanctity of marriage". As far as the internet goes in challenging mainstream ideas, or at least providing an outlet to do so. Websites such as YouTube and the blogosphere have created an entirely new outlet for expression. Content ranges from silly videos to political critiques. On an equally broad scale, there are millions and millions of websites worldwide created by users presenting ideas dissenting from mainstream ideology.
The internet serves as a way to escape our media saturated society, incidently with another form of media. The beauty of the internet is the many many channels we have the abillity to flip through. Each having unique and completely seperate views.
Will this replace mainstream media? No. But it does offer and alternate realm of media available to us comsumers. And, for the most part, we interact very differently with the internet and typical media, ushering in an era of more active media consumers.
Communication studies examines what goes overlooked in everyday life. This often makes it difficult for me when explaining what exactly I'm studying to friends and family. I get a lot of "Ohhh you study advertising. So you want to go into marketing?" and then some "I see. That sounds a lot like sociology, or psychology right?" And after four years, my response is still "Well, um, ya, kinda, but not really". So what are all these loans for then?!?!!
My classes have taken a strong cultural studies approach intermingled with communication technology classes, which, while useful, are much less interesting. I have found myself deeply enjoying classes which look at media, society, and the relationship between the two. We often look at advertising and mainstream cultural content as something to study. It makes sense to examine this rather than Shakespearean sonnets as the public consumes much more low/pop culture than high/classic culture. Andy Ruddock uses a phrase to describe cultural studies as "making the familiar strange".
This is a very important idea. We generally take what we see for granted. Flipping through magazines I know me and my girlfriends (and guy friends when they're not with other guys) look at the ads and critique the dresses, shoes, and overall attractiveness of the model. But we as a group never seem to look deeper than that, while my internal dialogue is running a mile a minute about the portrayal of gender and power relations within the media we are passively consuming. Soooo why am I not voicing this all? I'm not really sure. I have found that many of my friends find it very difficult to look at media in this critical way ( I find this especially true in those focused in on hard sciences). But honestly!! How could we not view this stuff as strange??
Some sample ads
This could read as: I am Alicia Silverstone, and I am a NUDIST! or, and I got too drunk and woke up by the pool naked This has nothing to do with vegetarianism and everything to do with sex. But they say food is sexy right? Looks like this girl hasn't seen any sexy food in a while, so maybe that's why she's naked?? Trying to make the salad sexy?
Cruising through the pages of Google images for ads I found a slew of others that I would like to question.
These two ads I found to be rather disturbing as the women are portrayed as little girls. Or the little girls are portrayed as women. I'm not really sure which way they're going with this but either way it relates sexual arousal with young girls.
I could go on and on about these and the many others I found but I will spare the redundancy. But before I part with the pictures, let me ask you what the religious right would have to say about the following Natan Diamond commercial.
Ahh!! the sanctity of marriage!!
Stuart Hall is a cultural theorist who believes we both create and consume culture at the same time. This essentially means that in viewing culture, in this case advertisements, we create our own meaning. We consume culture in the sense that we view and then internalize, although we may not consciously be doing this. In terms of the advertising examples, who we are creates a range of possible interpretations. Most who have not studied communication would probably pull out a "whatever, sex sells" opinion of these, while those of us who can, and actively, view these things as strange, can see a myriad of meaning built into a simple picture. It is, after all, worth a thousand words. Hall uses semiotics as a way to draw meaning out of media. In the Natan advertisement, the box with the diamond in it is the signifier. The signified (meaning we glean from the signifier) in the first part is the traditional idea of marriage. The second part, is sex, and a way to get her to spread her legs when she may not have before. Meaning is quickly changed with a simple opening of the box, uncrossing of the legs.
Thinking about the meaning of advertising makes me wonder what is going on in the heads of those creating these ads. Not really much. Most likely, what pretty young thing can I get to up the sales of Science Diet dog food. Maybe if she's eating the dog food, or a guy is walking her? Some tag line having something to do with pure food for your pure bred? or only the best for your bitch? Ok maybe I'm taking this a little too far, but seeing the repetition of objectification makes me rather cynical. It puzzles me that more people don't question this portrayal. For the bigwigs creating the ads this would most likely be career suicide, for women it would just be another feminist rant, and for men, it would be a denial of everything our culture has ingrained in them.
Men are trained within our society to objectify women and women are trained to want to be objects. Media shapes women into thin frail play helpless things. Sadly, I often see girls and young women embodying this portrayal. The power relations between men and women in the media is so obvious yet so unexamined! The more I study it, the more aware I become of it. People often think of the hypodermic needle effect of media. Critics like to say rap music makes men deal drugs or beat women. I disagree with this and rather adhere to a cultural analysis of media content. Ruddock describes this as the role the media plays in shaping dominant ideologies and the way we see ourselves within the world.
The limited scope in which advertising portrays women, especially in relation to men, is very telling of our societal values. While men play power roles in this specific form of media, women appear as dominated, the means of mens sexual pleasure or simply objects of adornment.
Let me start this off by saying I'm not a gamer. I can barely navigate my way through a game of Mario Cart. Because of this, I am disconnect from the media and able to look at it more objectively.
