BLOG RESPONSE 4

               After looking through some of my classmates’ blog entries on satirical news and its value in our society, I have realised two very important commonalities in the opinions of my peers. Firstly, many of my peers believe satirical news shows to be more revealing than regular news broadcasts; and secondly, people are starting to turn away from the modified stories that the media offers in its regular news broadcasts, simply because viewers are becoming more and more aware of this on-going modification.

                Keenan Beaumont (http://keenbeau80.wordpress.com)mentioned in his blog that he thinks satirical media is a true form of culture jamming in our society. He also mentions how regular news-broadcasts are often prevented from revealing all the facts involved in these stories; and satirical news simply allows people to form their own opinions about certain public occurrences.  He believes satirical news shows are a part of culture-jamming, and that they do have a place in our public sphere. I personally agree with what Keegan is saying here because I have always classified satirical television shows as the “call-out shows” of our society; or in other terms, a show that reveals unrevealed evidence and allows us to form our own opinion on certain events. Regular news is the summary but satirical news shows are the summary AND the (comic) reflection.

                Ms. Hough (http://nhough95.wordpress.com/) mentioned in her blog that culture jamming has always been referred to as a way to advertise. Therefore, satirical news shows’ attempt to point out the faults of prominent figures becomes a serious problem; simply because it is taken as a negative advertisement. I do agree with what Ms. Hough is saying here, however at the same time I believe there is a distinction between satirical media and satirical politics. I also believe that culture-jamming is still a vital part of our well-informed public sphere. People can call satirical news shows fake, however the way I see it is an opportunity to see stories from another (comical yet realistic) view; and an opportunity for viewers to form their own opinions.

                Elana Dulberg (http://elanadulberg.wordpress.com/) stated in her blog that she believes “shows that frequently culture-jam such as Jimmy Kimmel and SNL are now becoming a mainstream form of media”. Respectfully, I disagree. The regular news broadcasts we see everyday still reign supreme. I believe the reason why satirical television shows have not become mainstream forms of media is because of the connotations still surrounding these shows. People still believe these shows to be false informed, attacking and too lay-back. I believe if satirical television was not still surrounded with these connotations, it would be considered an ideal place to learn information. This is because it informs us about events from a different view(even the bad-side) and allows us to form opinions of our own.

Jake Coetzee

BLOG ENTRY #4 : Satire and Culture

              Within the last decade, satirical television shows have become a rightful ingredient of culture jamming. In today’s society, there is so much going on in politics; whether it is politics itself or the personal lives of politicians. Satirical television has become binding to present-day society to make sense of the modern peculiar state of some politics. The main reason as to why satirical shows have become so main stream is because these types of shows offer certain insights into what is classified as the current state of politics; which essentially suggests that the satire from these television shows adds insights to the realm of politics that the news and other media cannot. (Media and Society, p. 214) I believe the extra insight on politics that is offered through some satirical television shows can be considered useful in grasping a light-hearted, straight-forward, and comical view on a certain issue.

                One common goal that everybody shares in viewing news media is to understand what is going on in our world; and in a society like today’s, all of us are seeing a story through the tainted window that is mass media. People need satire news shows, because it reassures them that there are others out there who feel the same outrages that he/she does. The sole fact that everyone finds it funny is reassuring.  As citizens we all want to be reassured, which is part of the reason why we view mass media in the first place.  Although the term ‘jamming’ may be referred to as “an obstruction, that is, the equivalent of a traffic jam for the media; it can also reference a more playful, spontaneous form of improvising and engaging with the media.” (Media and Society, p. 213) Satirical media has cemented itself in society’s views because it broadens our perspective on certain political issues; while we view these satire news- shows in a light-hearted and comical manor.

 

 

Thanks

 

Jake

 

o'Shaughnessy, Michael. Media and Society. Fifth Edition. Austrailia : Oxford University Press, 2008. 213-214. Print.

BLOG RESPONSE 3

Hello

             I believe that blog entry #3 mainly comprises of wanting what we get in the media. After reading over 10 different blogs, I was able to pick out one major commonality between all of them; and that is every company’s effort to attack its addressee’s insecurities. Companies need a way to provoke somebody to purchase their product; which is why they attack these perceived insecurities.

For example, in Justin Gideon’s blog, he mentioned that “Another effective way for corporations to increase the awareness of their advertisements is to instill humour. Humour is arguably the most important piece of what makes an advertisement memorable.“ (http://justingmsblog.blogspot.ca/2013_11_01_archive.html) Personally, I could not agree more with what Justin is saying here. I mentioned something similar about the importance of comedy in my piece. For the old spice commercial I wrote about the comedic vibe I get from watching this commercial, and how it preliminarily sells me on the product. I think everyone would be a little more sold on certain products if their advertisements didn’t lack as much humour as some of them do.

Mady states in her blog that “…clothing, fragrances and undergarments is sure to make you feel sexy and desirable” (http://madysylvester.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/what-the-hail/). Not only is Mady’s ad attacking the viewer’s insecurities, but it is also implying that in order to feel sexy and desirable, one must smell like them and wear their clothing. A commonality can be found with this ad and my ad: the Old Spice commercial. In my ad the Old Spice man states that he is the man your lady wishes you were. In both cases, the company is addressing all non users of the product; stating or implying that if you do not use this product, you will not feel sexy or desirable, or feel like the man your woman wishes you were.

Including influential figures in advertisements is a very important goal for all companies with ads. In the Old Spice commercial, the Old Spice man is classified as the “man your woman wishes you were”, therefore validating himself as a prominent figure. Sweetz’ blog was about a Gillette series ad.  Gillette uses figures such as Tiger Woods and Roger Federer in order to catch the viewers’ attention. He states that “Gillette does a good job marketing through television adverts because they often include professional athletes like Tiger Woods or Roger Federer.” (http://js10ss.wordpress.com/2013/11/)  I can comfortably say from personal experience that seeing my role model in a commercial is a very persuading factor when considering buying the product.

 

Thanks

 

 

Jake Coetzee

BLOG ENTRY #3 - OLD SPICE COMMERCIAL

 Hello to all, 

         This Old Spice commercial is a perfect example of a form of media targeted at my demographic. This commercial is narrated by a good-looking tanned man (looks like a model), reinforcing the credibility of the body-wash.  The ad is implying that anyone who uses this product can be like him, otherwise known as “The man your man can smell like”. In this ad, the narrator originally addresses women, appealing to their desire to make their man more attractive. However, through further analysis, notice that the ad is actually addressing insecure men. Throughout the commercial, the man submerges himself through a series of settings where he is offering female viewers expensive gifts; such as a horse, a beach setting, a pile of diamonds and two front row tickets to a show.  The company’s motive in this commercial is to portray the Old Spice man as the ideal male, a man that every woman wants. But with this ad begs the statement: Ads are instruments of socialisation, and we can’t control it. (Media and Society, p.182)  In doing this, he is presenting items that a woman could only dream about, further adding to his credibility of being the perfect man. The commercial tells women that they WANT front row tickets; they WANT a horse; they WANT a pile of diamonds. By grouping the Old Spice bottle with these expensive things, it is making people think that how attractive their man will smell after using this bottle is just as valuable as all those other fine things. To help the persuasion, the Old Spice man really connects with the viewers’ sense of humor as well. The way he so dramatically delivers his argument makes him seem charismatic and charming. It is funny that a $10 bottle of body wash is being compared to a pile of diamonds, but that and the comedy is what makes the commercial somewhat convincing.  Personally, when a commercial pertaining to my demographic is able to make me laugh, I am already sold on the product. The man is pertaining to all teens and young adults who shower on a daily basis. He makes his viewers beg the question: Do I want to smell like normal body wash or do I want to smell like every woman’s dream? I know that as a 19 year-old, I am starting to become even more interested in women. This commercial convinces me in a light-hearted fashion that Old Spice will help me attract women or make my woman more attracted to you.  Although this commercial was very convincing and light-hearted it still brings forth the question: “Are we defined and determined by forces outside of us?” (Media and Society, p. 189)  

 

Thank you for listening,

 

Ernest Coetzee (ec12qf)

o'Shaughnessy, Michael. Media and Society. Fifth Edition. Austrailia : Oxford University Press, 2008. 36-37. Print.

 

OLD SPICE COMMERCIAL URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VX5au0LOJp8

BLOG REPLY POST #2

Is the media we want the same as the media we need?

Hello to all,

The media has its own positive and negative attributes. On a positive note, the media allows us to be in touch with important information and events going on throughout the country/world; a crucial necessity for being an up-to-date member of society. A great example is the use of communication technology. Sam Dixon mentioned in his blog that he had emigrated from England; and that the use of mass media allowed him to stay in touch with his family back home.  On a negative note, media has the ability to put their own twists on stories and/or leave out crucial pieces of information, which makes it hard to believe everything we see.  Despite all this, the main mandate of the media is to impress its viewers; give them forms of media that interest them. Consumerism is the base of the media, Adrienne Redka states in her blog that “ With the way advertisements are being portrayed, now a days we see thousands of new things every day that we realize we want and are willing to work long hours for.” I believe the media gives us what we want and tells us why we want it; when that desire turns in to necessity, the media is then giving us what we need.

 Take cable television for example; there are a variety of channels, most channels playing shows and commercials suitable to certain types of personalities (i.e. SportsCentre). Allen Rogers made a very interesting statement that caught my eye: “Because of the consistency with what we actually get, we want what we get because it is what we are used to.” We are so used to what we have been getting in the media, we now want what we have been getting since we can remember. The answer to this blog’s question is located in the development of media as a whole. The reason why the media is flourishing in today’s society is because technology has advanced so much. It acts as a source of information for so many things going on in the world today; it is the reason as to why we have become such a diverse society. Mass Media is so crucial  in today’s world,  it has the power to tell us what we want; and it does exactly that.  I personally believe that we need media to function as a social, futuristic, and multi-cultural society. I also believe that the media has so many forms of itself suitable for so many personalities, the media we want may just be the exact same as the media we need.

Thanks for your time,

Ernest Coetzee (ec12qf)

Allen Rogers - http://arcpcf.blogspot.ca/2013/10/the-media-we-want-or-we-think-we-want.html

Adrienne Redka - http://adriennereds8.wordpress.com/

Sam Dixon - http://adriennereds8.wordpress.com/

Media: Do we want what we get? (OR) Do we get what we want?

Hello CPCF 1F25,

             In today’s society, it is safe to say that media has the power to shape our lives. There is a very relevant argument behind today’s mass media influence; and that is: Do we get the media we want? (Or) Do we want the media we get? 

Take advertising for example; “Because advertising promotes goods, it produces materialism” (Media and Society, 37) When materialism is produced, this is when society wants what they get in the media. Through advertising and reactions of the public to forms of mass media, media gets an idea of possible ideals that society wants to see and hear. This is when getting what we want comes into play. “The media teach us about masculinity and femininity, what it means to be a normal man or woman”. (Media and Society, 36)  For example, you see a cleaning cloth that has a certain technology in it allowing for more absorption when wiping; and then later that night one of the commercials on the show you are watching has a 30 second advertisement  specifically dedicated to that product; that is mass media influence at its finest. They know that in terms of cleanliness, that particular product can make a cleaning job way easier, quicker and more effective; they also know that people want a job made easier in any circumstance. Another example could be Swiffer Mops.  In a Swiffer commercial, mass media is addressing the hardships of using a regular mop to clean, and offers a solution to make mopping quicker and easier: The Swiffer Mop. These are two examples of the media giving us what we want. The particular audience that both advertisements are addressing is offering an easy way to do the things they do; the real question is: Who doesn’t want life to be easy? In conclusion, getting what we want and wanting what we get in the media are both factors in terms of influence.  So do we get the media we want? (Or) Do we want the media we get? Personally I feel like it is a mixture of both. 

- o'Shaughnessy, Michael. Media and Society. Fifth Edition. Austrailia : Oxford University Press, 2008. 36-37. Print.

Thanks,

Ernest Coetzee

BLOG REPLY FOR MASS MEDIA IMPACT - CPCF 1F25 - JAKE COETZEE - EC12QF

Hello CPCF 1F25

    From the Blog posts that I have read, it seems that a majority of the class has a similar opinion to mine. Everyone’s opinion seems to consist of how mass media only lets us see things through a small, filtered and edited mass media window. The question is not about how significant the impact of mass media is on our worldview; because realistically, mass media COMPLETELY controls our world view. My impression on mass media has not changed since I have been reading other blogs. Everyone seems to believe that sometimes we may not get the full story to something because some crucial information is being filtered out by mass media. The mass media publishes things that we take at face value. Not because we are close-minded, but because mass media prevents us from seeing the full story. 

      Connor (http://oconnormedia.wordpress.com/), from CPCF 1F25 had a very useful quote in his blog post:

     “Let’s use Twitter as another example. A man apparently commits a crime, and just for fun, let’s say his name is Zimmerman. What happens? Well, one person of significant “status” tweets out an opinion calling for Zimmerman’s guilt. Then it gets retweeted by 15,000 people. Since, according to Digital Market Ramblings, the average Twitter user has 208 followers, that perspective has now reached tens of thousands of people. And that happened all because an influential figure used a media platform to post a perspective. As a result, the views of people who all follow one person online have become quite similar. Anything unique or creative that could have existed is now gone.”

     This quote is a picture-perfect example of how we see events and items through the filtered window of mass-media. We only take things at face value. Connor made a good point here, he basically told us that 15000 people got a very vague description about a criminal. What these people did with this description was deem it their overall opinion of the situation. There is clearly more to the crime scene than a well-respected man’s opinion of the criminal. This proves that we sometimes only hear certain information about types of media; because sometimes all the media is looking to publish is half a story.

     Meagan (http://mm13sa.wordpress.com/) also made some good points about mass media’s influence:

 “Imagine a world where computers, cellphones, televisions, movies and music did not exist; a world where this idea of ‘media’ was not even thought of.”

  “How many times have we heard someone say, ‘I could never live without my phone!’”

These two quotes are small but so powerful. We never really think about what it would be like with no technology. This is because we are so used to relying on technology for our every need. I tried to imagine a world with no technology and all I could personally think of was how different it would be. Technology obviously ties in with mass media. If we are so heavily reliant on our technology then relying on mass media is completely an obligation. If only they wouldn’t filter stories to their liking.

 

Thanks for your time

 

Jake