Weyerhaeuser is one of the largest pulp and paper companies in the world and the world's largest private owner of softwood timberland. They employ 41,000 people in 18 countries.
I changed the logo in a way to respresent that the Weyerhaeuser Corporation isn't doing anything for living plants and wildlife but can only prosper and profit once they (trees, specifically but they obviously impact the global environment) are dead.
I think it's really interesting that while I haven't seen any of it, the pairing and apparent duel or "war" between two politically-based TV anchors on Comedy Central's The Daily Show had a ton of coverage on just about every other news network. It deserved much of the hype because many of its viewers feel that Stewart basically ripped Cramer a new one, pointing out his flaws in mis-advising the American public when they were repeatedly told by Cramer and the CNBC network to put trust in Cramer and his financial expertise. What we get, however, is a nice resolution at the end of the segment that yes, Cramer realizes his mistakes and while he realizes them, and "really tries to make good choices" (which is what he's paid to do, right?) and agrees to Stewart's urging to reclaim really catering to the everyday American's needs and not playing with rhetoric the way, not Cramer himself but largely CNBC does.
It's funny to look at other news segments' coverage of this "war of words" amounting to Cramer's appearance on CC and understand that its like a web, or almost a copy of a copy in that all they're doing is promoting the interets of other news networks when they could be concentrating on reporting the news.....like they're paid to do! Because really, why would I want to turn to a news network who is offering coverage on a difference in opinion from two guys who are also paid to report the news. I could just watch these guys on their own networks and get (what I think is) the true story.
After watching most of The Celluloid Closet, it was both interesting and heartbreaking to consider than we (heterosexuals) are so normalized of our portrayals in film that it's hard to believe that homosexuals will accept even negative coverage of their subculture. I thought that actor and I think producer Harvey Fierstein (he was my fave in Independece Day) who put this most eloquently when he says that they [homosexuals] have become to desensitized to not being adequately portrared to the point where they will take "visibility at any cost" because "negative coverage is better than nothing." Another commentator points out that "all minority audiences watch movies with hope" and that while we experience a movie as particular to us, the individual, in our oun social and cultural context, "everybody sees a different movie."
More LGBT contributers to the film commented that they are "pathetically starved for images of ourselves" and like everybody, have a "hunger to not be alone." We, as the heterosexual majority, are so normalized of seeing our own actions and behaviors regarding gender and sexuality that anything that deviates from that has always been under scrutiny. With 100 years of film under it's belt, filmmakers and largely, Hollywood, still do not give the LBGT community the voice and image in film as they deserve. We see, though, in this film that it has not always been their fault, that since the first images of gays in film were very...tip-toed around and given strong regulations and rules of censorship against the embodiment of their lifestyle.
What's even more interesting to see is the interpretation of homosexual behavior in the larger cultural lens. Dating back to the 1910's and 20's, the film shows clips that show homosexuality largely as an entity to be "feared, pitied and laughed at." We soon see the prototype of "The Sissy," an image that still pervades modern film as an attempt to make men feel more manly and women feel more womanly.
I recently watched a documentary that social activist, fisherwoman and marine biologist brought to Durango about the ExxonValdez spill that has caused the longest running lawsuit in history, entitled Black Wave.
In the wake of a film like this, it is so easy to become frusterated with American law, corporations (acting as individuals) and the regulatory processes that stifle us everyday. It just drives me crazy how we are shown CEOs and the big cheeses and what have you literally not giving second thought to consequences that don't pertain to their own lives. It is so clear to me that the people of Cordova and the surrounding area of Prince William Sound were directly harmed by the actions of ExxonMobil --financially, emotionally, physically, spiritually--and though Exxon hires people to issue impact statements and such, no one pays these detrimental impacts any attention. It is ludicrous how all that can just simply have the other cheek turned to it, let alone the seven-hundred-and-some repiratory issues reported by Exxon's workers in 1989 ALONE. It is CRAZY not to acknowledge that you, and I say you because corporations have so clearly defined themselves within limitations of the "individual," have been the direct cause of someone's death. How did we come to compromise these values.
If, in part (b) of Section 101 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), it says:
"(b) Continuing responsibility of Federal Government to use all practicable means to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of national policy, to improve and coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the Nation may - (1) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations; (2) assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings; (3) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences; (4) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice; (5) achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and (6) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources." (http://montereybay.noaa.gov/sac/2008/081508/nepa101.pdf)
...then who do we have to talk to to point out that many corporations, not just Exxon in this situation, are in total violation of a federal law?! The statements that corporations must now make up before proposing a project like oil drilling or logging are totally pointless...the plan should stop in its tracks when you consider that these actions aren't legally allowed to "attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences." By LAW, they are not allowed to pose risk to health or safety to we can assume humans, but also to animals and environment.
What is productivity without degredation? Whatever it is, it is seemingly impossible in this culture for productivity and progress are hinged upon linear growth and profit, while ignoring what we take from the land in this process. It's insane. It really is...
I read an article about Del the Funky Homosapien (born Teren Delvon James) in High Times last week, prompting me to include some of his tunes on my Pod. And so it was my new favorite song is born: "Mastermind" from the album Deltron 3030by Deltron Zero a side project of Del's, aside from his main thing, rap-group Hieroglyphics...a show I caught last year that introduced me to Del. The song starts out really slow with a simple beat, a catchy melody of course, and Del's visionary lyrics: "Who fuses the music With no illusions Producing the blue prints Clueless? Automator - defy the laws of nature Electronic monolith throw a jam upon the disc The futuristic looper with the quickness Hyper-producin' hydrogen fusion liquids keep your distance"
Del's lyrics are a good example of underground hip-hop and why it should be supported. Do you tink Lil Wayne is singing about hydrogen fusion creatively? No, because Lil Wayne's is rapping about this shit: "I ain't got no loves for broads I ducks and dodge I grab 'em, on they butts and all She fucks my dog Slut sucks nuts and all And nothin' small This dick make 'em hit the floor and touch the wall Call my hoes to get salami, 'cause they brush the balls"
Seriously? Seriously....I can guarantee you that Lil Wayne will make more money than Del ever will and I find that to be such an indisprepancy in the music industry. So many artists can make a huge profit off of very little talent. The act of rapping itself is not so hard, I can rap alongside most songs I listen to. What makes a good rapper is his lyrics...the creativity, ingenuity, and originality that influence his music. This is just another good examply of the value systems people attach to the music they listen to.
What I wanted to point out about this song, however, is the spoken word between 1:33 and 1:53. We hear a womans voice hauntingly reading the following slowly and dramatially, much like poetry, the background a collection of soft eerie voices. Her words read: "The day the walls of the cities will crumble away Uncovering our naked souls All start singing Shouting Screaming (loud, loud, loud, loud...)"
Initially I just liked the fact that there was a breakdown in the song, followed by the return of catchy and staccato-like lyrics of "psionically, bionically, forget how ya feel.." but the more I payed attention to what the words were, the more heavily affected I became. I ended up searching these lyrics and came up with a song they were sampled from, entitled "Loud, Loud, Loud" by Aphrodite's Child. Upon further research I learn that AC is a progressive Green rock band formed in the 1967. The 2-disc album that was their crowning acheivement included "Loud, Loud, Loud" and was eerily entitled 666, a musical adaptation of the Biblical Book of Revalations. On the album cover it says this above the title: "Anyone who has intelligence May interpret this number of the beast It is a man's number This number is..."
It's so fitting that I was shown The Corporation when I was. It was just 4 or 5 days before that marine toxicologist, commercial salmon fisherwoman, community activist, author, and all around bad-ass Dr. Rikki Ott was speaking on how she is working on an amendment to change the definition of a corporation so that it is estranged from that of the human person. A corporation, she argues is a collective and not a singular person with the human rights given to each American born citizen. This is precisely why I like going to a liberal arts school, in that I have talked about the idea of "The Corporation" in more than just this class and am using notes from another class to relate to this essay.
Anyways, Dr. Ott layed the foundation for us, which was good because I was pretty unaware of the legalities behind corporate America and all that jazz, saying that in 1886, American law granted right to "corporate persons," allowing corporations to apply our own individual rights that are so highly valued as a citizen of the U.S., amassing great wealth and power. More power. More money. More speech.
But as we have seen this power is an illegitimate power. We wee that these corporations, who were merely trying to produce "a whole galaxy of things to make a better life on Earth" (The Corporation) have actually been in the process of for many decades and will continue to -abuse and corrupt the legal system -abuse the environment -abuse campaign finance -spread globalization and -continue to fuel the economic collapse
It is clear that the focus is simply on making money with no (intrinsic, physical, moral) value attatched. Dr. Ott even refers to the idea of a "corpocracy," basically the type of goverment that we're in and that is where corporate values are top priority, we see a "suicide economy," we are inundated with wars, cancer, divorce, etc. and all it is is about money exchanging hands. One needs treatment for cancer. $. One needs $ for divorce proceedings. BILLIONS of $$$$$$$$$$ are WASTED on wars. Acne is only a problem because we can sell you things to make it better. You think cavemen/the Anasazi/the Puritans gave a shit about their blemishes?
So what Dr. Ott is proposing to Congress is that much like the separation of church and state, we have separation of corporation and state. Instead of consolidating wealth and power, ultimately destroying everything, we as a nation should deem that corporations in fact don't have the same properties as natural persons. While I think Dr. Ott is very inspiring and legendary in her kind of word, I think she may have bitten off more than she can chew with Am 28. After all, what can a middle-aged, 100 pound woman do in the face of all the head honchos and big cheeses that are laced in a web of bribery, payoffs, lies, deceit, loss, and capital? I don't know if it is much. I really hope so, though. The point is though that it does take more than a hundred pound woman, or student activist, or factory worker, or single father to make the difference and if we all speak up, something can be done. I just fear that there's many more connections in this web from our goverment to the bigger corporations--money exchanging hands--for this to be solved anytime soon.
It's interesting to take the point of view as these "coolhunters" as anthropologists who are looking at the teenage demographic like a wild indiginous culture previously unseen. It's so difficult to step outside of our culture, especially our generation, and look at how money driven, delusional, and frankly psychopathic we are. If you think about the things we truly value, it's mindblowing. Kids now want cell phones before their 10th birthday. Hot Topic continues to make millions. Artists like (hed) p.e. sell records and kids still beg their parents for Happy Meals.
What happened to the youth culture being concerned with sustainability and being able to feed their grandparents? What does it tell us that in our culture, we pay to basically lock elderly people away instead of ensuring their safety and good health? It tells us that our values are seriously out of whack, misconstrued, often just completely wrong and misguided.
When looking at some old photos depicted in the segment, I was struck how everything shown was definitely "not cool." Try to sell rainbor suspenders now, I guarantee you, you'll get laughed at. Rollerblades? Cool in 1994. Not to much now. "Cool" is such an unstable concept. Obviously there is evolution in what is "in vogue" or trendy at the moment, and we see that these types of products as well as channels, songs, hairstyles, etc. can be off the shelves in a day or stay in style for several decades. Not the best example but Led Zeppelin has been cool for forty years and counting.
I spent a fairly long trip in the car this weekend listening to (hed) p.e.'s (formed from "higher thought"/Planet Earth) new album, New World Orphans. For those of you who haven't listened to the musical genius (I'm being sarcastic here) of hed, there's not much else you can do but laugh, gasp, and recoil in disgust when you listen & pay attention to their lyrics. I suppose that the people who like hed like them for the beats and rhythms, guitar riffs, electronic sounds and loud cymbal crashes that constitute the "punk/metal/hardcore" genre, but I fear that many of them feel connected to and like their lyrics. Their style of music has also been called "trash-hop" and "G-punk."
Allmusic's Rob Theakston got right to the point when he critiqued hed's new album at the time, saying, "Back 2 Base X suffers from the same problems as Amerika: it tries to be conceptual in thought à la Tool and vicious in its political commentary à la Fugazi or System of a Down, but somehow falls short by sounding like an angry stoner on a soapbox. It won't win any new fans, but existing fans of (hed) pe's work won't be turning their backs away from the band in anger anytime soon, either."
While I do find myself enjoying the music, I feel like I am literally betraying the feminine collective by supporting hed pe. The biggest problem critics seem to have with their music is the misogynistic lyric content. Just to give you an idea, the album of theirs--Only in Amerika--that I know has a track list as follows: 1. Foreplay 2. Represent 3. Truth 4. Wake Up 5. War 6. The Box 7. CBC (cum bitch cum) 8. Voices 9. Raise Hell 10. American Beauty 11. Chicken 12. Daydreams 13. Not Dead Yet
While number 7 obviously has derogatory overtones, my favorite songs, "Wake Up","Raise Hell", and "Amerikan Beauty" have just as bad, if not more offensive lyrics. "Wake Up," a song advocating smoking joints, popping downers, and driving drunk..... all the while, celebrating the Al-Qaeda burning in hell, highlights its best lyrics in the chorus:
"Die motherfucker, die motherfucker, die
Die motherfucker, die motherfucker, die
Get high motherfucker, get high motherfucker, high,
We ride motherfucker or motherfuckin die."
Really moving, huh? I can guarantee you any of our parents would have turned this song off after the first three words. Speaking of...my dad happened to start my car an get an earful of this gem, "Amerikan Beauty," a song centered around getting frisky with a 17 year old girl (mind you, these guys are in their mid to late 20s):
"I'm lookin for a big butt to squeeze on these nuts I'm not tryin to think too much, I'm just tryin to get fucked and drink too much"
after referring to this girl as "babygirl","little bitch", "slut" and "jailbait" she chimes in with an young and whispery voice:
"Hey Daddy can I talk to you Daddy I'm only seventeen but I know just what to do At the club fools pay big money for me But Daddy you can get this lapdance here for free I need love Daddy, Daddy give it to me, it's my birthday..."
to which our lyricist says:
"Ahhight - then let me see your I.D. Cuz the last time I was fooled the bitch was just sixteen Big ass - big tits - she looked at least twenty-three"
The chorus is basically screaming the line "If fucking you is wrong, I don't want to be right" and while he admits, "I'm going straight to hell..." the lifestyle centered around "teenage pussy" ("a thing of beauty") seems to be one he won't change anytime soon. The most disturbing lyrics, and these are the ones that my father just so happened to catch are as follows:
"I'ma slap your little ass Til it turns black and blue Now ya put on these heels and ya arch your back And I'ma crack ya ass in half With my eight inch staff"
followed by my favorite....
"She was like 'Damn what the fuck did you do to me?' I was like 'Shut the fuck up - this ain't nothin new to me' She was like 'You're suck a dick I hate you' I was like 'Bitch shut up before I rape you' I like fuckin these ninety-pounders I watch it go in, I feel like I'm Shaqueil O'Neill and I'm fuckin the Olson Twins It don't take much more than a nice butt The slut smiles at me - the slut rides with me..."
Bitch shut-up before I rape you? I'ma slap your little ass 'til it turns black and blue? No wonder my father was so blown away. The most disturbing part though, above all else, is that since their conception in 1994, (hed) p.e. has gone through several members, put out AND SOLD 9 albums. Nine cd's of ranting about politics, pussy, pot and pills. You'd think it'd get a little old; either they would get sick of making such worthless music or their audience would get sick of consuming it. Either way, these guys are making quite a bit of money off this SHIT. And I still listened to it in my car this morning. And there are still millions of starving people who could use the profit from every hed poster, t-shirt, and record sale. How sad.
As they are considered "underground" as opposed to "mainstream," hed doesn't have a lot of music videos for me to share with you all but I found this..."Renegade" off the new album. Enjoy! Or not so much...
"...with the decline of the Empire this map becomes frayed and finally ruined, a few shreds still discernible in the deserts - the metaphysical beauty of this ruined abstraction, bearing witness to an imperial pride and rotting like a carcass, returning to the substance of the soil, rather as an aging double ends up being confused with the real thing), this fable would then have come full circle for us, and now has nothing but the discrete charm of second-order simulacra.1"
The only way I can put this crazy babble into context of perceiving media (and with the help of a wildly philosophical and talkative friend of a friend) is to understand this map that Baudrillard speaks of as the world in relation to exposure to media. The Empire is clearly those in power who dominate the media and in most cases, law, money, distribution, power, etc. In contrast, the frayed and ruined shreds are those cultures that we don't see and interact with; the cultures that still hold true to oral tradition and traditional living, completely alien to (or from) television and film. Cultures who, if they could, would be "bearing witness to an imperial pride and rotting like a carcass."
Another easy way for me to understand the piece, and in using the knowledge I have of the Matrix, is the first paragraph under "The Divine Irreference of Images" where Baudrillard can help me to understand his concepts in conjunction with another--a metaphor (one of the basic elements of semiotics that we discussed in class). He spoke of reality in terms of a sickness. Citing Littre, Baudrillard says, "Someone who feigns an illness can simply go to bed and pretend he is ill. Someone who simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms...Thus, feigning or dissimulating leaves the reality principle intact: the difference is always clear, it is only masked; whereas simulation threatens the difference between "true" and "false", between "real" and "imaginary". Since the simulator produces "true" symptoms, is he or she ill or not? The simulator cannot be treated objectively either as ill, or as not ill."
It then goes on to say that medicine and treatment for such an illness, supposing it is real is irrelevant at this point. If any symptom can be not merely feigned but produced, then every illness can be considered both "simulatable and simulated" and thus medicine loses its meaning in a world where every illness could be simulated, or is simulated, or will be simulated...
Baudrillard then asks, "Why should simulation stop at the portals of the unconscious?" Putting this in easier terms, I wonder why this simulation should stop at individually faking something, or "producing" effects when we could apply the idea to a whole. We can understand this in terms of a global simulation, making an entire version of reality that is separate from that of the true.
The babbling of my wise and seasoned friend led me to understand this essay in terms of the trail humans leave in relation to the technology we use (just think how all throughout the Bush Administration, all communications in American borders [yes, all of yours too!] were being monitored and basically funneled into a technological sieve). Our media and our digital trail are separate but can be viewed together to help understand both Baudrillard's piece and the Matrix. Think about the portions of the world we are not aware of. There are so many things going on that we are unable to perceive. There are many, many different ways of life that we could see if we were sensitive to other parts of the world. As I understand it, the Matrix is everything outside of what we can perceive and manipulate. Everything that is simply too fast, too invisible. And it's all around us. All the time.
Please keep in mind that I made it a point to record on a day where I knew I didn't have to leave my house, resulting in less exposure to media, and also that while I did listen to music all throughout the day (and therefore didn't record every single song I heard), I made it a point to not watch T.V. I did this because my days at school are hard enough and I know that if I had to take time out of my day to reference every logo I see, every song, commercial, etc., well I just wouldn't have enough time in the day. So please keep in mind that I really "took it easy" this day and limited my exposure on purpose, but still got the point of the assignment and don't always cut corners :)
Awake! at 10:00. Just in the room I wake up in, I see from posters and stickers and whatnot: -Metallica -Yonder Mtn String Band -Jack Daniels -Guinness -Telluride -Burton -Clif Bar -LG -Bic (lighters and pencils) -Verizon -Camel No. 9 -Tool -Jolly Rancher --Music from Pavement, Dave Matthews Band, Buckethead and Gorillaz
Come downstairs to make breakfast/lunch 'til 12:00: -Steaming Bean Coffee -Raw Sugar -City Market brand/Kroger -Jimmy Dean -Lenders -Kraft -Kohler -Fridgidaire -Sony -POM glasses -Simply Orange --Music from Tracy Chapman, instrumental music by the String Quartet, and Metallica
Loungin' from 12:00 to 5:00/shower-time: -Cadillac -Pantene Pro-V -Suave -Dial -Bath & Body Works -Arm & Hammer -Colgate, Crest -Swix -Windows 98 -Campbell's -Kroger (again) -Scotchbrite -Descente -Bic (razor) --Music from Jason Mraz, Old Crow Medicine Show, and Atmosphere
Trip to the grocery store,WAYYY too many labels and logos to record, but let it be known that shit is EVERYWHERE.
7:00-11:00/bedtime: -Hidden Valley -Timex -Marlboro -ConAIR -Oil of Olay -Listerine -American Eagle -Hurley -Nivea --Music from Led Zeppelin, Bela Fleck, Earl Scruggs, Zion I, and Tool
So while I didn't leave my house much and by entering the same rooms over and over again, I was exposed to the same materials rather than say, being at school where I would see something new with each building and each room I entered. That said, I am still overwhelmed by the almost subconscious and subliminal advertising around me. It's on my phone, my cigarettes, my milk, and my underwear. The importance of labels in relation to one's ability to recognize them--even with a millisecond of exposure--is pretty underrated.
My parents own and operate their own medical clinic. Recently, a representative from the local Yellow Pages came to them, offering their form of advertisement, but this year, unlike the other years, urged my parents to make a logo for their business (McGuinn Chiropractic). The man tells my mother, "it's all about being recognizable, marketable ." Now, I explained to my mother that this guy is full of it and for a small-scale, family-run business like theirs, being recognizable is not a priority. Keeping a low clientele base ensures that they come back because they know you, and not your logo.
We know the man is right though, and logos serve as shortcuts for our brain--immediately connecting the image of the logo with a phrase, an image, sound, idea, value, etc. has become an entirely thoughtless act. The advertising business as a whole raves, fists pumping, jumping and high-fiving, every time we make one of these immediate associations: they've got us right where they want us. How scary is that...
This is why I have been waking up in the same room for 3 months and never have I been critical of the font associated with Metallica on a tapestry or the popularity of a couple not-so artistic posters which are nothing more than advertisements for Jack Daniels whiskey and Guinness beer. Also oblivious to me was the insistence of logos on my everyday stuff, because it's definitely not enough just to have your name on your product that people use everyday and can probably remember, but we must have a recognizable picture or image to accompany it. LG, Bic, Camel, Marlboro, Arm & Hammer (my toothpaste), Windows 98--all things I use everyday and don't pay much attention to...though if you asked me to draw the logos for any of the following, I bet you I could do them all. My Jolly Rancher chapstick was a great and funny example of a new trend of brands merging with other brands to promote each other. In no way is the Smackers brand of chapstick related to Jolly Rancher candy, but for this particular product (and for thousands of little girls begging their parents for it) it works.
The place I spend most of my time outside of the bedroom is the kitchen, the place in the house that we see many, if not the most logos and product brands. Kraft cheese, Lenders bagels and Campbell's soup are all particularly well known in their respective areas and while I saw a few main brands like these, I noticed that many of my products are "generic" and either boast the City Market or Kroger brand. At City Market, there is usually an option, whether it is for pasta, milk, soup, cookies, soda, oats, salt, whatever, to either get the pretty packaging with the recognizable, brand-name logo (and this way we have some sort of idea of what the food is supposed to be like; we hold name brands more accountable) or a generic brand which is, on average, probably 25-50% cheaper. Being the low-income student that I am, I find that I buy more generic products than I do brand-name. Rarely does this affect me in the store unless the generic product really looks to be under par. Saving money is key in my lifestyle and it is evident when you see the things around my house.
While, like I said, this experiment could have had a bigger spectrum of results, a little more exposure, I definitely am basking in what I have found in all this. What I have realized is that to get away from almost any type of media, be it the noise of a siren, a billboard on the roadway telling you to swing by McDonald's, the recognizable logos on the computer screen as I write this (Blogger, Internet Explorer, Windows) the logo on the tag of your underwear, one would basically have to live as a social outcast, embracing life in a tree-top or something. IT IS EVERYWHERE. All the time. All over the world. Everyday. And while you may not think it, the marketability of the music you buy, the pills you swallow, the condoms you wear, or the air freshener hanging from your rearview can teach us all about what is important to the general public and what is important to the people in charge of the media we're exposed to, and maybe waht we can do to bridge the gap between these two ideals (especially with the economy falling and new "cheap!" advertising schemes). Be conscious. Make choices. Be an active citizen, supplier, buyer, listener and thinker when you're out in the world. Don't let others take advantage of the consciousness you have created. Own your thoughts. Go forth and prosper! (But whatever you do, don't eat McDonald's...)
No, not World of Warcraft. But War of the Worlds. I had never listened to the original broadcast but find that Radiolab's airing of certain clips of the broadcast, interlaced with questions regarding its modality and the actions it spurred, was much more beneficial to me. We talked a lot about in class how this probably couldn't happen now because you would have to have enough people watching/listening to the same thing at the same time which would be difficult with the thousands of options people have in their media intake. Not only would you have to get enough people to pay attention to your message for it to be effective, there are all sorts of FCC regulations, stations owned by corporations, and big cheese executives that would not let this happen.
I will tell you though that if I had a radio for under a year, as I would have in 1938; this mysterious box with words and music flowing from its speakers (but whose voices?) I would have definitely been one of the "1 in 12" statistic that went beserk--screaming and running to the streets. Think about it: with the radio being such a recent invention, the American public didn't know much about it: how radio frequencies work, who "DJs" the show, how the actual sounds are recorded so as to play them back at any given time. Add to this confusion, the idea that these "breaking news bulletins" had just come into effect a month before, and seemingly so often that "bulletins were interupting bulletins" (Radiolab). The tone of voice and the backgroudn noise are broadcast in such a way that it is designed to get the audience's attention and send them into a state of alert or panic. The way Orson Wells sounded to eerily similar to the commentator who had witnessed the Hindenburg tragedy (after he had reviewed the tape dozens of times) is a direct indicator of this.
So know you've got this box in front of me. I assume I've been getting truthful bulletins about Hitler and the Hindenburg and what have you. But you're telling me that you're going to deliberately, with the use of tone, rhetoric, outlets of media, strategic pausing and screaming, scare me so I run out of my house like a headless chicken, to tell me it's the radio's way of "jumping out of a bush with a white sheet and saying 'Boo!'" Not a funny joke. Not funny at all.
However, I can understand the point of the whole thing. The most significant portion of the Radiolab broadcast is the playing of Orson Wells many years later in the 1970's who explained that it was just a way to show people that anything the radio (or any media outlet for that matter) feeds us, we eat. And instead of digesting and regurgitating this information, he suggests we begin to ruminate (where cows chew, swallow, puke, chew, swallow, etc) and begin to think about the message and mull it over, considering its degree of modality.
I must first state my reasons for sharing this clip and say that it is not in any way to poke fun or exploit the homosexual or those who possess "homosexual qualities" but are in fact, heterosexual. While I find this clip hilarious, I think is more based around this man's mannerisms and way of speech than it is around his assumed "gayness." Though while watching the clip (and laughing absent-mindedly) we must realize where this man--and the larger situation--belongs in the discourse around non-traditional lifestyles in modern-day America.
In looking at this clip, it's hard not to analyze current gender roles in America and why this video is in fact called "Masculinity Fail." We know that hundreds of thousanda of American men "fail" at masculinity by cultural standards everyday. The point of the video is that a young man, who looks Indian or of Eastern decent, is being filmed doing his job as a weatherman. At first, we hear him speak a little bit about rainfall. At this point, you can barely tell that he sounds more feminine thatn most men or is gay at all. Soon, though, he covers his mouth, gasps, lets out a little squeal, stifled moan, and then says "I am so sorry, Bill. OH MY GOD! Ahhh, this is what just happened, that thing was craaawlin' on my leg..." The next part is funnier, of course, when we realize that "it" is a cockroach, and 3 hours later, it is yet again plauging our weatherman with fear. This time he is in the middle of a segment and we hear him say, "Oh God, if that...OH MY GOD THERE IT IS! Oh shit, oh my God, ohh noooo..."
Maybe this is only funny to me because it would be pretty close to my reaction if a roach was cruisin' up my leg. Maybe it's funny to others because this man is seen as very flamboyant and clearly "out of the norm." However, the interest in this clip is in the fact that while women can act that way around bugs and roaches and spiders, men definitely cannot. Any real man would have used his Italian leather loafer to bust that roach in a second. Our guy can't even be in the room without shreiking a little to let his fears known. In American culture, this gives us the right to point, laugh, and make fun of his lifestyle. Not cool.
Put a little too simply, there are two kinds of people in this country: the people who support the use of marijuana and the people who do not. Many of the people who support the use of marijuana use it themselves. There are several organizations of non-supporters, the most well-known--thanks to television and print advertisements--is the national group Above the Influence. I’ve been exposed to many of these advertisements that act more as public service announcements as they are not selling a product but discouraging the use of another and I often question the logic, tactics, and appeals this organization uses in order to relate to its target audience: the tokers. Generally the commercials offer an opportunity for insight for the often criticized marijuana user, giving them a chance to question their way of life and in a matter of words, become a better person; the commercial I analyze is no different.
The ad can be found on the organization’s website www.abovetheinflunce.com but I’ve seen it frequent channels like MTV, TBS, NBC--channels that I know many members of Above the Influence’s (ATI) target audience tune in to. Because of what types of viewers certain channels draw in, this ad probably wouldn’t appear on the Oxygen or History channel. The length of the commercial in exactly 30 seconds and is comprised of both image and sound (music and spoken word)--6 words of small text are used at the end of the ad and even smaller text citing the organization who is advertising.
This advertisement is most certainly geared toward a very specific age group--school age children, even college students, probably 13-25. Of the 6 characters featured in the ad, they all look to be of middle or upper-middle class and presumably all of them are students (from my judgement, most are high-school age). If it matters, all of them would probably be considered attractive. Specifically, and in this order, the ad shows the following people, each with a sentence of spoken word: A brown haired young man stands in a little girl’s room fashioned with shades of pink, dollhouses, and flowers. With hands in his pockets, he says, “I stole from my little sister.” A young girl with long brown hair is seen in her kitchen pointing out a report card on the fridge while she smiles and says proudly, “I got straight D’s.” A laid-back guy with a surfer vibe is lounging on a bed in what looks to be a dorm room, and says excitedly, “I left my ex-girlfriend 27 messages last night.” A sweet looking girl stands with her hand of the shoulder of a mother who solemnly cries in front of her bedroom mirror while the girl perks up and says, “I make my mother cry.” A nerdy-looking boy lies, passed out on a couch at a hoppin’ (and messy) house party while the camera utilizes a time-lapse effect of fast scenes showing many hands drawing and coloring on his face with markers (we see a French mustache and “dork” on his forehead). The boy then (soberly, it seems) wakes up and says, “I let people draw on me.” The last scene is of a young black man in an older (orange, nice!) car in front of a garage, and with hands on the wheel beams and says, “I ditch my friends and let them find their own way home.” The (very small) text that draws all these statements follows: “What has weed done for you?”
It should also be noted that the music playing in the background is really upbeat—it features soft guitar accompanied by a flute, and kind of makes you feel like dancing. The music plays throughout the commercial but has a peppy little “breakdown” during the up-close shots of the characters’ faces, showing them beaming and proudly nodding.
The “hook and story” of this ad is based on the idea that ATI is parodying a certain type of advertisement featuring “testimonials”—the ad gets our attention and might be considered funny because while the things the characters are saying aren’t positive, their body language, vocal tone and facial expressions are. ATI is using the format that would be better suited for the correlation between a product and the effects it has upon the consumer, for example: “After taking Such-and-Such herbal supplements, I got straight A’s” or “With Such-and Such, my race times are better than ever.” Instead of making a positive correlation between the product and the consumer, ATI attempts to be successful at making a negative one. It is also necessary to mention that the ad primarily appeals to the viewer’s guilt centered around the act of using marijuana. It operates under the assumption that because marijuana is illegal and it supposedly makes you stupid, lazy and apathetic, its users are supposed to feel guilty when an ad like this points out what they feel the viewers fail to really think about: How is marijuana use (negatively) affecting your life? The point is that once the viewer sees this commercial and others like it, they will think twice about their use and hopefully change their ways (quit).
To fully understand the motives behind ATI’s message, it would be helpful to look at the assumptions about and preconceptions held against this age group of tokers. Hundreds of thousands of American citizens enjoy marijuana as both a medical and recreational drug—we know that these people come from different ethnic groups, income brackets, ideologies, and ages. ATI chooses not to portray older users who most likely understand the effects of their use both on their own lives and the lives of others; nor does ATI portray characters who use marijuana for medical purposes. Bottom line: the character they want to expose is one who is irresponsible, unfocused, and ignorant. ATI assumes that smoking weed is a priority for all six characters; they don’t take into account the frequency of use nor what is acceptable behavior within each child’s family, if there is a history of addictive behavior, or whether the characters mix the use of marijuana with that of alcohol, like I know many kids their age do.
There is something to say in the fact that all the characters look “normal”: they are all sheltered in some way, clothed, not starving, and to top it off, proudly grinning. They could have made the characters look worn-down and disheveled in an attempt to show the viewer what someone on their path looks like, but they chose to make the characters look like “you and me” to get the point across to us that the controversial toker could be anyone, any seemingly normal basketball, guitar, or chess player that we see in every American school.
Upon my first viewing of this ad, I began to question what ATI’s advertising/marketing team’s thinking process was in its production; solely based on each characters’ statement, I think the ad used completely inefficient tactics. As a marijuana user, I have a good idea what behaviors are exhibited by people under the influence of the drug and I have never myself, nor ran across another person who did any of the things mentioned in the ad. As far as what effects marijuana has on the body, the accusations as I’ll call them are totally inaccurate. If there are two groups of people as I mentioned before, how can one accurately see into the life of the other if their nature is to be opposed? How do the people behind this advertisement know to discourage the use of marijuana based on certain behaviors if they themselves don’t understand the behaviors linked to marijuana use because they don’t know firsthand? Breaking it down: Stealing from little sister (presumably to buy the drug)--this behavior would more likely be suited to a user of alcohol or stimulants. Because the effects of drugs like cocaine and heroin are short-lived, it would make more sense for these people to steal to support their habit, simply because they need to stay high is their top priority. I can’t generalize, but I’ve never known a marijuana user to steal…especially from their kid sister. Straight D’s-- It may be fair to assume that once one starts smoking weed, their studies will move down the priorities list and their grades begin to fail. While I have certainly seen instances like this, it should not be assumed that smokers can’t hold a good GPA. Personally speaking, I maintain above a 3.0 GPA, and feel that not only are my grades improving each semester (as I continue to use) but my thinking processes change and evolve, giving me difference perspectives by which to critically analyze the world. 27 messages--This one is the worst and be much more believable coming from a drunk. There is no way that someone who is stoned would even have the energy or attention span to not only call someone but to embarrassingly leave dozens of messages to an ex (because alcohol is known for its ability to severely impair judgment and lower inhibitions whereas marijuana slows brain function impairs body movement coordination). Sad mom--This is plausible because I’m sure it would upset some parents to learn that their school-age child uses pot. For other parents, it’s not the worst thing their kid could do. I guess ATI gets a thumbs up on this one… Let people draw on me--First of all, if you’re passed out, you’re not letting anybody do anything to you. Secondly, if you were to pass out wasted, people can usually do what they will with you--physically it is more difficult to wake you from sleep like that. Under the influence of marijuana, one would probably awake upon feeling things touch their face as they would if they’d fallen asleep sober. What’s so bad about being drawn on anyways? Heaven forbid I have a fake mustache drawn on my face. I’ve seen a lot worse done to the kid who drinks the most and passes out way too early… Ditch my friends--The last scene definitely plays on the part that the character is behind the wheel of a car and technically driving while intoxicated, which I know is an issue. However, never have I or any of my friends gotten too high to either forget about giving our friends a ride home, become too lazy to give a ride, or who really snapped and ditched their friends out of anger or annoyance, I don’t know. Smoking weed doesn’t make you care about your friends any less.
Many of these statements would world better if the ad was discouraging the use of alcohol or methamphetamines--any drug that is more lethal than marijuana. Booze, cocaine, meth, heroin, uppers and downers of all kinds--that shit can and will kill you with one use while the death toll caused by marijuana use remains at zero. 0. None…and Above the Influence puts all this time, energy, and especially money into dozens of ads about marijuana use when they could be focusing on substances that have much more deadly and dramatic effects on their users. America’s “War on Drugs” is a debatable subject these days--where the money comes from, who is behind it, what people and organizations benefit, why we don’t legalize everything and reap the profits instead of and underground business holding billions of dollars and it definitely needs to be considered when seeing ads like this.
To wrap up my analysis of the ad, I must take into account the effect the ad has on me. While haven’t ditched my friends or gotten straight D’s, I can tell you what weed has done for me. Weed has allowed me to meet and spend time with so many interesting people. Weed makes music sound better, food taste yummier, and yeah, it makes things funnier. Never have these things been negative. Weed has allowed me some good times (and some bad) but it surely hasn’t ruined my life and I’m certain that it will continue to have a positive effect on my life so long as I continue its use.
Lately, I've been noticing the types of advertisements on the MySpace website and analyzing the demographics they appeal to. The ad that catches my attention reads "21 and overweight? Try the recommended diet for 21 year olds." In the just top four inches of the page alone, I see three bare bellies, and of course all three are toned, tan, and sporting a belly ring. BEHOLD! I refresh the page and see the same words "21 and overweight?" but this time, followed by "Try the recommended diet for 22 year olds," (fools!) as if there is a diet that would be more appealing or beneficial to me if I were just another year older. Is there actually a "diet for 21 year olds" that wouldn't work as well for a woman in her late forties? What kind of logic is this? When I finally do click on this oh-so-inviting link, I arrive at Emily's Fat Loss Blog at emilysweightloss.com. Apparently, if you act within ten minutes, you get a bottle of both Acai Supreme and TriSlim--both products boasting "amazing free trials with a full money-back guarantee," which raises the question "What money would I be getting back if this were truly free," right?
At any rate, the bottom line in my critique of this ad is questioning MySpace's knowledge of my age, if they track the millions of MySpace members in this way and advertise to them accordingly.... what do you think?
Del rockin' Skull Candy
