John Strohmeyer's Blog

Final Reflection

johnstrohmeyer — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 03:56:05 +0000

While I have been combing through all of the class blogs looking for posts to comment on, I noticed many Final Reflections starting off with “I have never blogged before this class.” I felt relieved since the same is true for me. I would have never started a blog if it weren’t for this class. Yet now, I feel like bloging is a very natural form of writing to me, and a new medium for intelligent discourse. I will not lie; I was quite intimidated when I read the syllabus and noticed that we had to start a blog. As I am looking back though, I would have never grasped the concepts in this class if it weren’t for writing about relevant cultural material through each blog post.

Some people say that the best way to study for a test is to re-write your notes, my blog served as this function and more. Although the discussion in the class was very helpful, I felt that when given time to look over the readings and apply it to a blog post, I was able to comprehend class material much easier. The concept of hegemonic masculinity was a concept that I felt was the most readily applied concept I learned. Because of the blog, I feel much more informed about masculine ideology in pop culture since it is so dominant in movies, tv shows, music, etc.

Although picking my strongest blog post is like choosing a favorite child, I would say the post that best exemplifies my work is Masculine Hegemony in Video Games. I think I not only grasped the concept of hegemonic masculinity as I mentioned earlier, but I also connected it to a facet of media that seems detached from tv and movies. I also thought that comparing our ideologies of men in video games to that in Europe and Japan provided contrast to the blog post. The post I most slacked off on would be my response to Erin’s post about Why people feel the need to watch youtube. In this post, I wrote pretty minimally, and although I expanded on her post, I did not develop my ideas into a full statement, rather a few mere sentences.

What I would change if I were to write for a class blog again would be most importantly to keep posting every week. Although I managed to post each blog article without compromising my writing or missing deadlines, I will admit that I did not update my blog weekly. By updating my blog weekly, the material would have stayed fresh in my head, and I would not have to spend time digging around for quotes in the reading or concepts learned in discussion. Bloging in this class was a fresh, new mode for comprehending class material. Not only was my blog helpful for comprehension, I gained insight from other students blogs, which provided different perspectives on the same material. Pop Culture in America in all honesty, was set up phenomenally; it was by far my favorite for the quarter.

the real world [of commercials]

johnstrohmeyer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:34:22 +0000

One of my favorite video clips we have watched in class is Charlie Brooker’s Screenwipe. This ingenious video illustrates the formula used to create reality tv shows. ‘Reality’ being subjective to whatever you make of it of course, since no reality show really is ‘real’, rather a simulation. As shown in the video, reality shows can create drama, suspense, mood, etc., out of any footage, just by editing it in a certain way. I highly recommend watching the video if you haven’t already, it can be found here.

Regardless of whether reality shows are ‘real’ or not, people love them. I dug this quote out of a past blog post, which gives insight as to why people like reality shows; “Reality TV allows Americans to fantasize about gaining status through automatic fame. Ordinary people can watch the shows, see people like themselves and imagine that they too could become celebrities by being on television,” Steven Reiss from phycologytoday.com. Seeing a person you can relate to is not coincidental however, as Chuck Klosterman explains in his book Sex, Drugs, and Coco Puffs, characters in shows like The Real World, are casted to fit a particular stereotype.

“[The Real World] succeeds because it edits malleable personalities into flat twenty-something archetypes. What interests me is the way those archetypes so quickly became the normal way for people of my generation to behave,” (Klosterman, 31).

A recent trend that I have seen in media is advertisers utilizing this cultural love of reality tv and applying it to commercials. Just like a reality show, these commercials are simulacra; just a simulation of what is real. In recent Microsoft commercials, ‘normal’ people are shown in big-box stores picking out a computer, eventually leaving with a Windows laptop. A similar example can be found in Pizza Hut commercials, where everyday restaurant goers are secretly eating Pizza Hut pasta. Both of these commercials use documentary-style camera work and editing that resembles reality tv. The audience can relate with the characters in these commercials, just like in reality shows. Just as Klosterman observes in The Real World, personality archetypes are used to make these commercials appealing to all different kinds of people. I am eager to know whether audience of these types of commercials react the same way to that of reality shows, and whether companies are seeing increased sales because of it.

References:

Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, Drugs, and Coco Puffs.
Reiss, Steven. Why America Love Reality TV.

no-bull marketing

johnstrohmeyer — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:01:49 +0000

After reading The Brand Expands segment from Naomi Klein’s book No Logo, I began thinking of the most aggressive branding campaigns that came to mind. Bizarrely enough, a crushed red bull can beside my chair inspired me to think of all the lucrative advertising Red Bull has done over the years. For such a simple product, Red Bull has sponsored some major events, professional athletes, and has created an unmistakable logo that I could identify from a hundred feet away.

“Brandings current state of cultural expansionism is about much more than traditional corporate sponsorships: the classic arrangement in which a company donates money to an event in exchange for seeing its logo on a banner or in a program. Rather, this is the Tommy Hilfiger approach of full-frontal branding, applied now to cityscapes, music, art, films, community events, magazines, sports and schools. This ambitious project makes the logo the central focus of everything it touches – not an add-on of a happy association, but the main attraction.” (Klein, 29)

Red Bull’s logo is not just applied to banners for events that it sponsors; it becomes the event. Although Red Bull is just a drink, through its advertising it has came to stand for a ‘cool’ alternative lifestyle. Take a look at some of Red Bull’s past events and advertising:

References:

Klein, Naomi. No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bully.

response to thomas’s post: Fox News Sux

johnstrohmeyer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:29:04 +0000

I am usually pretty apathetic towards televised news when it comes to which station is the most accurate, which ones are biased, etc. Since this is a media class critical of pop culture, and since Fox news tends to be flagrantly biased, I felt it appropriate to add to your post. Further, my recent post, O’Reilly vs. Science ties into this, so I figure I’d continue my tangent. Neil Postman’s book, Amusing Ourselves to Death opened me up to the fact that TV news stations should be not be taken so seriously, as they’re all skewed towards entertainment, receiving ratings, and captivating an audience.

“Therein is our problem, for television is at its most trivial, and therefore, most dangerous when its aspirations are high, when it presents itself as a carrier of important conversations” (Postman, 16).

By solely watching televised news, and taking it seriously, public discourse is threatened since news consumed this way is simply fed to its audience. Perhaps the reason why Fox is always in the spotlight for being biased is because they sensationalize news that appeals to right-wing, conservative viewers. However, the same argument used to condemn those who watch Fox News in all seriousness can be used for those criticizing it. By criticizing news, we are thus taking it seriously. Some condemn Fox to the point of labeling it propaganda. I don’t denounce the fact that it is biased, however I propose rather than disparage Fox for its biased news, to instead take it with a grain of salt, and know that better forms of news exist.

[After reading this a few times through I realized that it sounds like I am preaching to Thomas, which was not my intent, at all. In fact, I agree indefinitely with Thomas; Fox tends to be quite hypocritical. I am instead discussing this topic in terms of Postman's argument, and addressing whoever may read my post. Peace.]

References:

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin, 1985.

response to ashrock’s post: it’s so ridiculous…

johnstrohmeyer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:52:33 +0000

I agree with your argument about satirizing either all religions or none. I further agree that people are either becoming outraged because of this issue, or increasingly apathetic towards it. I for one am mostly apathetic towards the situation since I believe that people should believe in whatever it may be, perhaps the flying spaghetti monster, it honestly doesn’t bother me. I also favor the side of ‘make fun of them all,’ since it really doesn’t make sense any other way, and if no one pokes fun at anything, we will turn into a nation of “democracy endangering moralists.” This we learned from Robert Harriman’s essay In Defense of John Stewart,

“Likewise, if we must choose, we would be far worse off living with moralists rather than jokers. Fortunately, we also have the option of living with both jokers and moralists…” (Harriman, 275).

I am not saying that I enjoy a joke at the expensive of ones beliefs, yet I am not saying that people need to “lighten up” about their beliefs either. Rather people need to be comfortable with other people expressing their beliefs and opinions, even if they contradict theirs. We need to learn to live with both moralists and jokers.

References:

Harriman, Robert. In Defense of John Stewart.

response to dave’s post: otto rocket – a gnarly guy

johnstrohmeyer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:46:34 +0000

I too grew up watching Rocket Power, and as an avid snowboarder and skateboarder, I am partially embarrassed to say that this show had some what of an influence on how far I pushed it with these sports. Watching this show as a kid had plenty of psychological effects on me. First of all, the characters portrayed in Rocket Power were in a similar age group at the time as I. I drew a connection to them, as if they could be my friends in real life. I was very similar to them, I was fairly lazy as a kid (as were Otto and Twister), and I loved ‘extreme’ sports. I would say I was a fan of the show, but not in the sense that I worshiped them. In fact, I often found myself aggravated at the characters because they were pulling off absurd, physically impossible tricks. I agree with Dave in that the show reinforces hegemonic masculinity through its own devices.

One of the main hegemonic qualities as Dave pointed out is the function of sport in the show. Not only did Otto Rocket prove himself the most ‘hardcore’ character in many episodes of the show, his sister Reggie was always the voice of reason, she played a very stereotypical female role (take a look at the episode Dave included in his blog). “Forces and competence are… translations into the language of the body of the social relations which define men as the holders of power, women as subordinate [and] this is one of the main ways in which the superiority of men becomes ‘naturalized’,” (Trujillo, 291). To the defense of the show (and a point David made), Reggie often beat Otto in various competitions during the show to his demise. Although this could have just been used as a tool for creating drama and tension in the plot, or as an element of surprise. For the most part, Otto’s character naturalized the masculine role through his ‘hardcoreness.’

Here is a segment of a Rocket Power episode that Dave included in his blog:

References:

Trujillo, Nick. Hegemonic Masculinity on the Mound.

O’Reilly vs. Science

johnstrohmeyer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:46:20 +0000

Several weeks ago in class we discussed “the church of the flying spaghetti monster” and whether the US is a Christian nation. As a nation, we are very Christian compared to other countries, but the fact that a majority of Americans are Christian should not compromise the opinions of those who aren’t. Although sometimes subtle, Christian ideals are often portrayed in the media, such as the clip we watched of Fox and Friends, which criticized President Obama for not going to church in 11 weeks. Sometimes Christian ideals are not portrayed so subtly however, in The O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly believes that atheism is a “bane to society,” and undoubtedly judges people who are atheist. I found a clip of O’Reilly arguing with scientist and atheist Richard Dawkins, and I could not believe how O’Reilly based his whole argument against Dawkins using Christianity. You could argue that Bill’s argument was justified since The O’Reilly Factor is an opinionated show, but for watchers who devote their television news consumption to Fox, The O’Reilly Factor can be misleading. Perhaps a majority of Americans are Christian, however, that should not mean that our nation must succumb to the beliefs of Christianity.

References:

The O’Reilly Factor. Personal Story: Richard Dawkins.

response to anthony’s post: arrogance. is it worth it?

johnstrohmeyer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 21:21:36 +0000

I completely agree with your post. Just as some celebrities make public appearances, interviews, autographs, etc. to stay in the spotlight, I can think of an equal number of celebrities who garner media attention for their arrogance and conceited nature. Although I used the example of Kanye at the VMA’s in an earlier post, one such example that fits your post well is a song by Denis Leary, called I’m an Asshole. Leary’s song (and accompanied video) satirizes his arrogance as well as people similar to him.

The good part about Denis Leary’s arrogance is that he can laugh at it, I find him much easier to sympathized with than celebrities like Kanye who take themselves way too seriously. In my personal opinion, I would not sacrifice my dignity and respect as a well-intentioned guy (which I hope others think as well) for a moment in the limelight. Quoting from your own post; “Arrogance is a very powerful thing. It can corrupt people, cause them to make the wrong choices, or if they’re a celebrity, it’ll cause a pop culture controversy.”

response to dave’s post: music and the masscult

johnstrohmeyer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 04:49:38 +0000

This is less of a response and more of an extension of Dave’s post which I highly agree with. What I want to focus on however is the current state of hip-hop as a masscult. There is a huge difference between hip-hop played on the radio, and what is regarded as ‘underground’ hip-hop. In the case of radio vs. underground hip-hop, Macdonald’s point could not fit better. “The more popular and consumable a piece of music is, the less artistic and enjoyable it is,” Dave exclaimed on his blog. Although it does sound conceited, I do not consider hip-hop on the radio as an art. It is music to reach the masses, and for the most part, music you can play at a party and have everybody familiar with. However on the other side, underground hip-hop can be looked at as more creative; containing more substance in the lyrics and beat, yet it remains unidentifiable by the masses because it does not appeal to everyone. To compare, here are two examples of hip-hop; the first song being a radio hip-hop song, the second, underground.

participatory culture: using the internet for grassroots news

johnstrohmeyer — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:23:51 +0000

There is no doubt that the Internet has the upper hand in reporting real-time news. Where print news has to wait a day, and televised news hours, Internet news is reported almost instantaneously and around the clock. It is fair to be questionable of this news, as it is not (for the most part) being reported by professional journalists, or published by major news sources. This news is rather reported by independent journalists and writers who use blogs, youtube videos, etc. to report their stories. What makes this news reputable and different than televised or printed news is the fact that it is not passive, spoon fed news. Writers of blogs, and hosts of youtube news videos often state opinions for the sake of argument with their viewers. One of my favorite online news programs is called The Young Turks, it is a grassroots youtube news show, which airs multiple clips a day.

Viewers are actively involved in news like The Young Turks, which brings me to Neil Postman’s argument in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death. “Medium is the Metaphor” outlined in Postman’s book is a way to say that different mediums cannot support the same content to be perceived same way (Postman, 7). Where TV news is condemned by Postman for being “entertaining,” I like to think that this new wave of Internet news brings in more intelligent and informed discourse where viewers can argue and critique each other in a public sphere (well, public being online; on a youtube comment section, or a blog response for example). Perhaps as Internet news develops it will steer American society away from that of a Huxleyan nation (as predicted by Postman), and more towards an informed, intelligent society, unafraid of challenging mainstream, passive news.

References:

Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Penguin, 1985.

The Young Turks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIV82zmaggs&feature=sub