Money Makes It Easy: Ignorance Sells

If money isn't the root of all "evil" like the popular phrase implies, let's leave what ever is a mystery. Today people get their kicks off the laziest and most unproffessional ethics of entertainment and media if you ask me. Music will be my prime example in this blog.


The music industry has almost trashed all standards and good criteria a musical artist needs to make it big. They have found out that raunchy lyrics and a suggestive appeal of these artists tends to relate and attract the audience of the real world. I've stated before in previous blogs that sex, drugs, violence, etc, is basicly running this world in terms of media. If creating a song, or even album revolved around promoting all of these things is all it takes to make millions, why not do it? It seems to be all about easy listening and relating to the general population, which includes a lot of crime and poverty ridden areas. In doing this, being poor or in a "struggle" with life is created as "cool" and interesting.

Let's be real, a song thats main chorus is "Super-Man dat Hoe" has little to no positive stimulation to our society and our children who grow up lisening to it. However, people buy it up. This has a lot to say about our world and not just the people putting this poisonous trend of ignorance into it. How did we get so accepting to lazyness? Can it even be traced back to anything or anyone? My guess is inflation, or the growing value of money. Our economy bounces up and down all the time, as does the employment rate. People are running out of ways to make money and especially creativity. However, it seems fathomable to be able to target those that do have money and are willing to spend it.

Kids and teenagers are some of the biggest consumers, and also the most interested in the music world. Their adolescent minds are easily targeted. As much money that flows into the music industry, it seems like a pretty good decision and career feild. A current rap artist "Waka Flocka Flame" even admits to the media that "I know I ain't the best at rapping, I just do it for the money like most rappers are starting to do". What will our world turn into if money contiues to draw us away from our moral values of positivity like this? Could we even consider ourselves anymore human than money itself?

Still According to Adorno??

A man named Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) coined a term "culture industry" in which i believe to fully explain even today's circulation and understanding of materialization and economy. Along with his buddy theorist Max Horkheimer, he adopted the belief that instead of the spread of pluralism (basic substances make up reality), society is corrupted by capitalist industry and motives. In other words, the world has become all about idolized materials and possessions rather than basic human needs such as food, water, and general happiness. The motive of the theory was to stress the individualism of people apart from the consumer view of mass culture. However, this was never respected. Instead, our entire world revolves around consumption of things that are only significant because we created the value. All types of items and materials have earned the title "Neccessary Evil", where there is both negative and positive significance. For example, electronics and technological innovations such as televisions, radios, computers, Ipods, cell phones, etc, ultimately rot our brains and consume the consumer so to speak of their time, energy, and of course money.
Clothes are needed to protect people from biological threats to ones body, but high-priced clothing that is almost to delicate to even bring out in the sun doesnt share they same significance if you ask me.

At this point in time, it just doesn't matter anymore. Consumerism runs rampant. Stores and shoping malls exist almost everywhere as trees and our old heartland of the outdoors is almost becoming non-existent! Retail strores bring large amounts of consumers everyday to their appealing atmosphere. Materialism is what keeps our society and economy alive! Not to mention the growing significance of whats on the market. Technological accessories are one of the most important, but also expensive things to obtain. The world connects through electronic devices more than in person, and it's becoming more usefull in the business world as well. Teenagers and even adults are able to contact people through electronic devices like never before. There are even online schooling aids via internet! Business meetings can be arranged from the U.S. all the way to China with computers and other technological methods that are sold on the market. Some material has made a permanent mark on our world in which it is important to obtain in order to operate at the same rate as everyone else.


ACCORDING TO ME.....

The individualist aspect of Adorno's theory has vanished in today's world if you ask me. Most of us share the same interest in obtaining expensive materials, and understand it as shaping our social and economic contentment. Those with the largest T.V. and fastest cell phones can't help the after feeling of "productivity" and accomplishment after buying them. Not to say that some people don't deserve to spend like their lives depend on it. If you're rich and work hard, all that money has go to go somewhere. However, i don't believe that your high monetary status is what makes you an elite of and individualist like some may. My own understanding of being an individualist is being an innovater rather than a consumer. Those who use their money to gice back to the community rather than feed off of industry. However, I can give the same respect to a consumer who follows their own guidelines and taste of luxury and materialism.

.

Charlies Angels Sets Trend: Different Feminist Approach?

In most television shows that consist primarily of three or more female characters, the personalities of these characters interestingly don't resemble each other. One female character may be intelligent and strategic, one may be tough and aggressive, and the other may reflect more feminine characteristics such as beauty and fashion. I find it interesting that girls are portrayed as being able to have any given personality, but in terms of men, if they aren't always masculine it just doesn't make the cut. Furthermore, the basis of these type shows consists around "fighting" or investigating crime, which is usually understood in society as "man" like actions. In this case, why wouldn't all the characters have man-like characteristics?

The better question is why do male characters in super hero standard only express violence primarily to resolve conflict? It could be argued that a growing feminist idea is that men may only be usefull through aggressive means. Charlie's Angels is an excellent example, along with what I recognize as the cartoon version of this series, the Power Puff Girls. Both shows consist of three female based characters that are distinct from each other in persona, but work together to save their home town from crime and bad guys. The super hero has commonly been expressed through male characters like Super Man, Batman, the Green Lantern, Spider Man, etc. However, these heroes focus is always on their ability to fight and make dangerous feats in order to save the day. It's rare that male super heroes are seen as significant through making strategic decisions or for their blatant intelligence. Also, I myself cannot recall any movie or show where three or more male super heroes are high-lighted for anything besides their masculinity and ability to beat someone up. 

In Charlies Angels, the idea of the "Angels" is that with only three of them, they are able to fight crime in mutiple ways and not just violence. Is this phenomenon reserved for women? Moreover, is this barrier between "brains over bronze" becoming silently evident through the media? Charlies Angels is one of the earliest examples to use and could very well have been the start of this trend, or ideology. Of course this is just an idea. After all it does makes sense that three more sources of brain power and physical enforcement is better than just one, no matter if your a male or female. The set of Charlie's Angels just has a different feel of dominance than uses more than just the strength of your body, and almost limits the male super hero to just that.

The Dirtier Side of Porn: What Do These Girls Go Through??

On June 11, 2010, a 19 year old porn star named Ami Jordan was reported dead in her sleep. The reports for the first couple weeks were unclear onto the cause of her death. However, the "Type 9 Models" owner Kevin Kline answers in an interview that she "may have had a problem with pills, in which she came to me to help her". Looking to a Porn owner for help about drugs and obviously emotional issues isn't exatcly the best method. The fact that she had to ask him rather than anyone related or close to her is odd itself. What drove her to possibly overdose on pills? Is being a Porn Star more than what it appears to be? The audience is greatly tricked by porn and how women appear to be having the time of their lives. However, this is all part of show business. The constant degration and offensive content of porn is more than enough to depress even the people watching it. It's almost like these women "sell their souls" to porn for the money and attention lacked in their normal lives. If this is the case, the porn adds another controversial outlook on its morality and emotional harm to women. There is a choice to becoming a porn star, just like there is a choice in watching it. In comparison, which is more of the issue? Of course it takes the consumption and viewing of porn for the industry to grow. The viewing is also a negative affect to porn. If the fear of being viewed as a "slut" or "whore" is enough for someone to commit suicide, wouldn't women with potential interests in becoming a porn star be turned off by such news? If less women enter the porn industry, less money will circulate. As big as the porn industry is, the owners most likely will try to avoid this. This brings us back to the Ami Jordan's death. If Kevin Kline had done anything to help her, there would be a better chance of her being alive today. How low can the porn industry be by allowing their stars to take drugs, when reasons could be based upon their enhanced preformances on them. If the industry is this dirty, maybe more of the viewing should be on the owners rather than the "actors".

"Porno the Issue": Creating the General Change Of Sexuality In Society??

Porn is a multi-billion dollar industry that grows upon showing extreme sexual content in a number of ways.  However, although many people in the world express negative views towards porn, it's obvious that it recieves enough viewing and reception to carry on as being lucritive. People hate on porn but are to embarrased to admit to watching it. Whether you hate it or love it, you have to watch it in order to have an arguement and opinion. Sexuality gains the attention of the whole world whether by positive or negative means. This could only benefit the industry and media. As porn attracts a wide-spread audience overall, sexual appeals to any type of content does the same. I'm getting at the fact that sex has a comfortable place now. Advertisements for the most wholesome material and things, is sold in a suggestive manner. Commercials are becoming more crude. Graphic images are disregarded as extreme, where as just some years ago it would have made popular controversy. Let's now get started with music. A song by Chris Brown called "make a movie", reffering to filming sexual acts in relation to a porno, easily makes it to normal mainstream music and radio enjoyed by kids as young as 10! The video greatly resembles the acts of a porno not to mention the content of the lyrics:

Not to say porn started the explicit lyrics and sexy music video theme of the rap culture, but if porn exist, why shouldn't this content? The issue is that this is accessible to youth, porn less so.What's interesting is that mainstream media has grown within the last 20 years in content, as the porn industry has grown in accumulating profit. With the headquarters in Los Angeles, and over 200 production companies in that general region, over 13 billion dollars is made in an annual year. By 2002, the growth of strip clubs and pornographic films grew, a revenue of 3.1 billion and revenue was added to the average compensation. So how big should we expect the porn industry to grow by 2020? Will porn literally exist everywhere and will it have a blatant impact on how we view ourselves and what's important? As for the media, the promotion style of clothing, cars, and jewlery, has switched over to women over time. Music videos and song names now resemble those of Porn films such as "We Don't love hoes" or "Two Bad Bitches". It's all revolved around portraying women as objects rather than people:

Has Television Become to Suggestive for Children?

As ive grown from a child to an adult, there has arguably been a dramatic change in the themes and content of television shows, including childrens shows. Shows such as "Spongebob Squarepants" or "Scooby-Doo", are primarily for elementary school aged kids, but can be enjoyed by all audiences. The dialogue resembles such of an adult, with strong references and cliché's to grown-up concerns and interests. The concepts and morals of these episodes are no longer elementary, but "adult" like and less educational. The only thing missing is curse words, but i woudn't be surprised if cursing in children's shows is allowed one day. I'm more concerned about how this may change society, and if censorship and limits of Media will ultimately be non-existing in time. People already are negatively influenced by the media as it is. As i explained in a past blog (Blog Post #2), violence and mature content tend to be more appealing to the general audience. Shows like "Spongebob Squarepants" can be used to attract not just an immature audience, but adults as well and still be considered as a children's show. The word "suggestive" best explains the silent manner of promoting mature content through these types of shows, with little concern of whether or not kids are smart enough to pick it up and adapt to it. However, the sad thruth of the matter is that kids are easily influenced, especially to what seems "right" or ok to replicate. Kids try to grow up faster or use language that is to "fast" for their age, which is mainly the result of the loose content the media promotes.

Media Coverage of Major World Events Ultimately Improving through Technological Advances.

Throughout american history, people have made it important that all significant events be remembered and documented by any means neccessary. Mostly all facets of media are technological innovations such as the radio, television, computer, etc. Each having a part in broadcasting major events in our world history. But something as "primitive" as the radio is treated to be less handy in current times. Although the radio had been extremely popular back during World War II, in today's time, controversy throughout the world and society can be captivated by just the video camera on your cell phone. A "Visual Aid" to life has been developed by the advancement of T.V., Computers, and cellular phones, where incredible footage can be exposed, developing new ideas and controversy. Take for example the plane attacks of 9/11. Footage of the first crash was amazingly caught on camera. This created critical analyzations of the attacks, which wouldn't have reached the same extent if never witnessed.

Major events in the world are now popularized as not just threats, but helping to shape our society. As the media grows, different concepts of promotion and advertising grow as well. The drive to consume as much information as possilbe overwhelmingly high. And why woudn't it be? Technology exist almost everywhere now, and because of this information is shared a lot quicker than has ever before.

Cell phones have become the main sources of information, where the internet and video are accessible and "texting" information is quite common.

"BARTMAN" the created Villian of the Media

In 2003, a man named Steve Bartman became one of the most imfamous people in sports history without ever playing a professional sport. During the 6th inning of a Major League Baseball game (Chicago Cubs versus Florida Marlins) Bartman subconsciously reacted to a foul ball heading his way. However, his interference with the play prevented the Cubs outfeilder to make the play and potentially win the game. As the game carried on, the Cubs began to slowly pull away from winning, almost as if that play alone had cursed them for the rest of the game. Bartman had recieved an excessive amout of abuse, with people cursing at him and throwing food at him as well. Although this was only one mistake, the media quickly popularized it into a sports "scandal".

The media is excellent a making one person a super star. Whether he or she is positively viewed or not, it seems to not serve as important. If this is the case, a person can become a star or an enemy for just about anything and can be known world wide for just the smallest incident. Pertaining to Bartman, the media had no mercy. The critisism news and sports networks gave him was primarily negative and mean. As a result, Bartman's life turned around quickly as he grew as a public enemy. The need for body gaurds and protection against angry Cubs fans was ultimately necessary as Bartman recieved numerous threats to his life. It's unbelievable how people can take such a small incident so seriously and explode negative energy to one person. It's also interesting how the media can feed off of it just to create a spark in our culture.

Negative Use of Media Finally Crosses the Line??

    While browsing the internet, i came across an extremly crude website thats topic was about slavery. The site was based upon the promotion of a video game pertaining to slavery. As peculiar as it was to come across a game about slavery, the concept of game exploring its history seemed interesting to me. To my surprise, the game had no positive attributes at all:

The media has a knack of promoting violence, obsenity, and extreme content with great success. People generally find graphic sex, drugs, and killing quite obscene, but hard to look away from. As inappropriate content finds more and more comfort in the media, it finds comfort in society as well. The freedom of expressing ones beliefs and views through media is treasured, but also greatly abused. There are numerous sources of media such as music, television, the internet, etc. All of which are used to promote and portray popular culture in the U.S. and around the world. However, in certain forms of media, particularly the internet, negative views and beliefs can be popularized and expressed to millions of people with just a click of a button. The internet is a great way to interconnect with people. Most people in the world spend a great deal of time on their computers. Whether its following popular trends, connecting with other people through social networks, or even watching T.V. shows, the internet can be used for just about anything. This is the problem. It's ashame that such  a phenomenon could be used to promote degregation and oppresive views to certain people and aspects of life. How could such a valuable innovation be used for anything but productiveness and leisure? The popularity of the internet, and general media, can negatively affect our society if used in a negative manner. But where is the line crossed? Does a limit even exist? Expressing yourself can only go so far. (The game isn't real but still shamefull for its general creation)

      

Realism V.S. Fantasy in Media

The chapter "Women Read the Romance" in the Mass Media class book expresses certain women's views on reading romance novels. It was described as an "escape from reality" or "escape from the daily life as a house-wife", something along those lines. In terms of your lifestyle, i believe theres a variation in your interest in any form of media, including literature, television, movies, etc. The genre of Romance usually has a fairy tale  "fantasy" ending between a man and a women. It makes sense that women with relationship problems may prefer to watch this. However, I find all of this interesting in terms of how genres are viewed. Fantasy can help your mind escape from reality, but why is escape always necessar? I find it just as rational to use realistic media as a mental release from the pains of life. Recognizing what the world is really like can help you appreciate your own, and also create a tougher mentality within yourself. I personally enjoy media that revolves around real life scenarios. I find that the acting, singing, writing, etc, is way more interesting and talented. Nonetheless, it seems that fantasy books and movies almost inevitably sell out through all ages of people.


Heres a video clip and link to the movie "Heat" (1995). I wanted to use this as an example because the suspense of this scene and the way it was shot is far from "Fantasy" and more of a reflection of real life. Notice there is no music in the entire scene: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9fnVtz_lc