Obama can't turn everything into positive inspiration.
"All it was, was a bunch of rants that - that aren't grounded in truth," Obama said. "And, you know, I can't construct something positive out of that."
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
didn't simply touch
Every time I think of a black person as "articulate", I feel a little twinge of racist guilt, remembering this NYTimes article from 2007 that points out its racist undertones.
At first, having mostly experienced the story by reading it, I thought it was good journalism. ABC had researched public records to find a really interesting angle on politics that Obama had willingly exposed himself to. It showed the public audience what a potentially big influence on his personal and political opinions had to say about important (and unimportant) issues.
I think that's because I watched the clips once, on YouTube, after reading articles about it, instead of leaving my TV tuned to the newscasts that evening. My opinion changed when I talked to people who had seen the same excerpted passages in a repetitive loop. That's when I started to understand the sentiment that Rev. Wright expressed so clearly in his interview.
Which did, in fact, inspire Obama's race speech, a speech that has been described as:
eloquent
resonating
historic
brave
honest
gutsy
unconventional
crucial
great
blunt
wonderful
truthful
"Barack Obama didn't simply touch the touchiest subject in America, he grabbed it and turned it over and examined it from several different angles and made it personal," Jonathan Alter wrote for Newsweek.
I think that's about right. I think Obama can take just about any situation and turn it into a beautiful and eloquent speech (eloquent is the new, more-acceptable way of describing a black speaker as 'articulate') to gain support.
It leaves only the question from one blog commentator, SenatorBoomdog, "When is Hillary going to give a speech explaining why her elderly lesbian army hates America?"
For some entertaining (and sometimes insightful) liveblogging on this speech, go here.
But as I watched these excerpts of Jeremiah Wright's interview with Bill Moyers, it was definitely the first word that came to mind. He is calm, collected, and rarely says "like" or "um". He is a fantastic speaker. I believe him, and I'm angered by the "media event" that made him the target of hatred.
At first, having mostly experienced the story by reading it, I thought it was good journalism. ABC had researched public records to find a really interesting angle on politics that Obama had willingly exposed himself to. It showed the public audience what a potentially big influence on his personal and political opinions had to say about important (and unimportant) issues.
I think that's because I watched the clips once, on YouTube, after reading articles about it, instead of leaving my TV tuned to the newscasts that evening. My opinion changed when I talked to people who had seen the same excerpted passages in a repetitive loop. That's when I started to understand the sentiment that Rev. Wright expressed so clearly in his interview.
Which did, in fact, inspire Obama's race speech, a speech that has been described as:
eloquent
resonating
historic
brave
honest
gutsy
unconventional
crucial
great
blunt
wonderful
truthful
"Barack Obama didn't simply touch the touchiest subject in America, he grabbed it and turned it over and examined it from several different angles and made it personal," Jonathan Alter wrote for Newsweek.
I think that's about right. I think Obama can take just about any situation and turn it into a beautiful and eloquent speech (eloquent is the new, more-acceptable way of describing a black speaker as 'articulate') to gain support.
It leaves only the question from one blog commentator, SenatorBoomdog, "When is Hillary going to give a speech explaining why her elderly lesbian army hates America?"
For some entertaining (and sometimes insightful) liveblogging on this speech, go here.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
One Lesson (a short post)
Today in class Professor Lewis asked us to talk about how our thoughts about the media have evolved through the readings and discussions we've had together, and I think I articulated the way I feel pretty well.
Before this course I hadn't given some, but not nearly as much thought to the media in terms of its representation of Americans and American culture. Well, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I hadn't really thought of the media as an entity that is or should be responsible for representing everyone in the US until I listened to the strong opinions of people who felt unrepresented, underrepresented or misrepresented by it. That's when I started to realize the power of the media to impact the way people think about each other and themselves, and the extent to which great responsibility comes along with that power.
Before this course I hadn't given some, but not nearly as much thought to the media in terms of its representation of Americans and American culture. Well, that might be a bit of an exaggeration, but I hadn't really thought of the media as an entity that is or should be responsible for representing everyone in the US until I listened to the strong opinions of people who felt unrepresented, underrepresented or misrepresented by it. That's when I started to realize the power of the media to impact the way people think about each other and themselves, and the extent to which great responsibility comes along with that power.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Bitter?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7355662.stm
This BBC page does a quick and easy job of summing up some of the election dialogue of the past few days.
It seems to me that the more Clinton challenges Obama, the worse she ends up looking in the end. If this situation were completely reversed--if she had commented that Pennsylvania voters were bitter and he had called her out on it, she would have definitely come off seeming "out of touch," and "elitist". I think Obama has built such a cohesive image for himself as the antithesis of these things that "misspeaking" a couple of words doesn't really threaten to shake public opinion of him.
I think that Clinton and Obama are two very strong democratic candidates. I've heard discussion of voters simply picking the underdog in previous primaries, just to give that candidate the opportunity to move forward in the race and continue to be heard. I think this contributes to the reason that Obama's "bitter" comment is unlikely to hurt him too much in the primary. I believe that whether subconsciously or consciously the fact that Clinton is a woman and Obama is a black man, strongly contributes to the image of him or her as the "underdog" when trailing behind in polls or facing criticism. Our cultural stereotypes (often historically-based) of both women and blacks as underdogs who have to fight to pull ahead are deeply-rooted.
Another part of me figures that Mrs. Clinton is picking away at (arguably) Obama's greatest strength--his rhetoric. She is using his diction against him. But doing that only seems to give him the floor to talk even more to the media. The more I listen to Obama, the more I start to believe that any opportunity for him to speak is going to lead to huge cheering crowds and an increase in support.
Additionally, as a photo major, I have to share a quick rant about this AP photo that BBC picked as "weekly picture," because it seems to me that it's no better than a still pulled from digital video of the debate. Photography should use the advantage of smaller still cameras to capture interesting and intimate moments! Still cameras are small and don't necessarily need to fight for tripod space on the media platform like video cameras. Couldn't they have chosen a more interesting picture from another angle?
This BBC page does a quick and easy job of summing up some of the election dialogue of the past few days.
It seems to me that the more Clinton challenges Obama, the worse she ends up looking in the end. If this situation were completely reversed--if she had commented that Pennsylvania voters were bitter and he had called her out on it, she would have definitely come off seeming "out of touch," and "elitist". I think Obama has built such a cohesive image for himself as the antithesis of these things that "misspeaking" a couple of words doesn't really threaten to shake public opinion of him.
I think that Clinton and Obama are two very strong democratic candidates. I've heard discussion of voters simply picking the underdog in previous primaries, just to give that candidate the opportunity to move forward in the race and continue to be heard. I think this contributes to the reason that Obama's "bitter" comment is unlikely to hurt him too much in the primary. I believe that whether subconsciously or consciously the fact that Clinton is a woman and Obama is a black man, strongly contributes to the image of him or her as the "underdog" when trailing behind in polls or facing criticism. Our cultural stereotypes (often historically-based) of both women and blacks as underdogs who have to fight to pull ahead are deeply-rooted.
Another part of me figures that Mrs. Clinton is picking away at (arguably) Obama's greatest strength--his rhetoric. She is using his diction against him. But doing that only seems to give him the floor to talk even more to the media. The more I listen to Obama, the more I start to believe that any opportunity for him to speak is going to lead to huge cheering crowds and an increase in support.
Additionally, as a photo major, I have to share a quick rant about this AP photo that BBC picked as "weekly picture," because it seems to me that it's no better than a still pulled from digital video of the debate. Photography should use the advantage of smaller still cameras to capture interesting and intimate moments! Still cameras are small and don't necessarily need to fight for tripod space on the media platform like video cameras. Couldn't they have chosen a more interesting picture from another angle?
Sunday, April 13, 2008
U.S., Texas, Mexico
From what I hear, Absolut got a lot of criticism for this ad, featuring a billboard map of Mexico that includes Arizona, Texas, California and several other American states that were a part of Mexico until the Hidalgo treaty in 1948. Absolut, a Swedish company, ran this ad campaign in Mexico, and was highly criticized in the U.S., to the point that Absolut has retracted the ads and issued the statement:
The In An Absolut World advertising campaign invites consumers to visualize a world that appeals to them -- one they feel may be more idealized or one that may be a bit "fantastic." As such, the campaign will elicit varying opinions and points of view. We have a variety of executions running in countries worldwide, and each is germane to that country and that population.The Absolut blog on which this statement ran is littered with 3190 comments, of which more than half are posts from outraged Americans calling for a boycott of their products, including lists of product names made by Pernod Ricard.
This particular ad, which ran in Mexico, was based upon historical perspectives and was created with a Mexican sensibility. In no way was this meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues. Instead, it hearkens to a time which the population of Mexico may feel was more ideal.
As a global company, we recognize that people in different parts of the world may lend different perspectives or interpret our ads in a different way than was intended in that market. Obviously, this ad was run in Mexico, and not the US -- that ad might have been very different.
By Paula Eriksson, VP Corporate Communications, V&S Absolut Spirits
Of the remaining posts, many of those are people saying "Oh, you're making way too big a deal about this."
Some are hopeful that the ad will educate Americans and the world about its history with Mexico. I find this response a tad optimistic, but I can't disagree with the sentiment. Along the same lines, a blogger named 'Pablo' wrote:
"For all you Americans that seem to have no sense of humor, how do you think we feel whenever Mexicans in your commercials are portrayed as donkey-riding, big sombrero wearing people with funny accents following around a Chihuahua saying "Quiero Taco Bell." I for one would like to thank Absolut for always being creative and imaginative with their ads. You are one of the best- I will continue to proudly drink Absolut."I'm trying to wrap my mind around the relationship between these two sentiments--a hope for the re-education of Americans and for a less-biased and stereotyped portrayal of Mexicans in the media. Thoughts? And then there's Tom from Texas who writes, “The American response to this add is so typical it's laughable, not everything is about the USA, the world doesn't revolve around the USA. It's reactions like this to a simple add that makes the USA one of the most unlike countries...well that and your tendency to run around the world killing people. =-D” His comment makes me wish that the American bloggers might read it and get some perspective on the way the U.S. continues to be seen by the rest of the world, but reading the posts that follow it don't leave much room for hope on this point.
Also, somebody wrote "As an owner of three restaurants I will say good buy to absolut," and I couldn't tell if he was joking or not. Hah. Good buy.
The ad didn't offend me much. In general I like things that are smaller in scale, localized and specialized for a particular audience, and this includes advertising campaigns (even if
they are part of a multinational marketing campaign). Many companies have local consultants to help them promote their products in specific regions or countries. (I learned, though it's still unconfirmed, that this particular ad was made by a Mexican company based in Florida.) I think this particular ad was quite clever. This is probably more action than the Absolut blog has ever seen. I have doubts that the boycott will have too large of an impact, and the publicity that this fiasco has caused will probably do more to promote the product than to ruin its name. I guess you could say I think it's a success. Rock on, Absolut.
The response from All-American Skyy vodka a week later deserves some attention. My favorite representation of the press release can be found on Hamilton Nolan's Gawker post, where he added choice patriotic quotes like:
"I like SKYY Vodka!", said William Gheen. "It is great to be able to have an occasional martini without contributing to a Global corporation, like Absolut, that is encouraging the invasion of my nation."
Here are some other, less-controversial "In an Absolut World" advertisements from 2007. The more I look at these, the more I think it's kind of a great campaign:
I especially like this last one because it's got a kind of self-deprecating irony about the advertising industry.
(I found these at http://www.absolutads.com/?p=727. See more, and recent ones at http://www.absolut.com/iaaw)
This whole thing makes me wonder if they would have gotten this much attention/criticism if not for the internet. Americans could have just as easily not noticed the campaign if not for the bloggers, right? I wonder if there is a historical precedent for multinational corporations facing criticism for localized ad campaigns.
Friday, April 4, 2008
My Habits and the Media in General
Since this is my media analysis, I think it will be worthwhile to spend a bit of time talking about the way I get my news.
I don't have a television. Somehow I manage to remain mostly media-literate, however.
In terms of broadcast journalism, I've been known to watch hours of youtube videos of Barack Obama and probably an hour or two of Mrs. Clinton as well. I listen to NPR news. I stream WBUR from the internet-- I do this every morning, when they're not doing their pledge drive.
I get the podcast editions of Fresh Air, This American Life, All Songs Considered, several columns of the New Yorker (political commentary and fiction), Slate Magazine, 60 Minutes, and Radio Lab. I also get Wait...Wait...Don't Tell Me, NPR's weekly news quiz show, and I laugh at most of the jokes they make. This entertains me on a basic level (I laugh) and also reinforces my belief that I'm pretty much aware of the important news stories of the week (if I didn't know what happened in the news, I wouldn't get their jokes, right?)
I read newspapers daily, usually online. I check headlines at the BBC and Boston Globe, I read the frontpages of the New York Times and the Washington Post. I get BU's Daily Free Press in my inbox every morning. I read online news magazines like Slate and Yes! about once a week, sometimes less.
I read a lot of blogs, and I do this every day. I read blogs about local news, political commentary, blogs about multimedia storytelling, blogs about environmental issues and how to be a more conscious consumer. I read blogs that make me laugh, like StuffWhitePeopleLike. (SWPL is probably the subject of a future post).
This morning, I logged onto my favorite blog, MultimediaShooter, only to find a message that it is no longer being published because it has been hacked, and I almost cried. It was a fantastic resource that offered examples of effective multimedia storytelling, reviews of helpful products and tools, and a source of general optimism about the state of the industry (even if it was the place where I first learned about AngryJournalist.)
But, before I do any of this, I check my email. Many mornings, facebook is the first website I visit, before I check the front page of NYTimes or the Globe headlines, or the Allston-Brighton TAB blog, and before I open iTunes to stream the WBUR newscast. Before I learn about news in the larger world I live in, I want to know who has tried to get in touch with me specifically, and if any of my personal acquaintances have written about important changes in their lives on their facebook profiles, or added pictures of things they experienced themselves. For years I've discounted this instinct as typical college procrastination, but I'm starting to think it's more than that.
During a roadtrip on Spring Break with several of my best friends, my buddy woke up from a catnap in the backseat and said, puzzled, "I just had a dream that Rachel Mennies died. I found out because it was on the front page of the New York Times." Rachel Mennies is a mutual friend of ours, and a fellow BU student. Everyone in the car responded right away with fairly predictable reactions-- "Oh, that's weird." "How did she die?" "That's kinda creepy, dude." and it took me a while to respond, contemplating in silence, but I said "Actually, I think you're on to something." I predict a convergence of social networking sites like facebook, and sites like digg that let you rate stories based on how much they interest you and sometimes track your reading patterns, to the point where, yeah, 10 years in the future, Marc might go to pull up "The New York Times" on his iPhone, and on the front page, there's a picture of Rachel Mennies and the headline is that she died because the newsgathering source "knew" that it would be the most interesting thing to tell Marc about the day's (or moment's) current events.
I think the direction we're moving is toward hyperspecialization, and super-targeted audiences. It's already happening in the blogosphere, where I can choose to get my news from sites that share my political views, sense of humor, and interests. I see this trend continuing, and I feel somewhat ambivalent. Someone ranted on AngryJournalist in caps lock, something along the lines of, "I hate journalism students who act nostalgic for newspapers-- YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO BE NOSTALGIC!!" I kind of understand where this anonymous person was coming from, and I'm not sure that what I feel is nostalgia as much as a respect for some of what that medium offers that I think the internet has taken from us.
In newspapers, space was limited. The most important story of the day was on the front page, and the lead photo was big, front and center. Newspaper websites still put the most important story on their front page, but as soon as you click on a link, that story and photo is the same size as the lead story, and in the same position on your screen as the other would be. With a newspaper, if all you wanted to know was the score of last night's game, you had to first turn past the story about the local election scandal and the war in Iraq to the sports page. In the evening newscast, you had to listen to the newscaster run through a summary of the night's headlines and several of the stories before you saw some of the game's highlights. Either way, you had to physically interact with these stories. Now you can go straight to espn.com, or even get updated scores text messaged straight to your handset. What a news editor thinks is important need not have any impact on the speed with which you access the information that you want, because you know where to find it. I predict that even general news websites like the New York Times and Washington Post will become more and more customized, so that "the most important story of the day" will not be chosen by an editor-in-chief, it will be chosen by the reader, as generated by a previous selection of preferences.
I find the world of new media that we are immersed in fascinating and also scary, and I think 10 years in the future when potentially the concept of Marc's dream is a reality and hopefully not the specific content (Rachel is so great!) will be even more fascinating... Although I'll admit I find it kind of scary.
I don't have a television. Somehow I manage to remain mostly media-literate, however.
In terms of broadcast journalism, I've been known to watch hours of youtube videos of Barack Obama and probably an hour or two of Mrs. Clinton as well. I listen to NPR news. I stream WBUR from the internet-- I do this every morning, when they're not doing their pledge drive.
I get the podcast editions of Fresh Air, This American Life, All Songs Considered, several columns of the New Yorker (political commentary and fiction), Slate Magazine, 60 Minutes, and Radio Lab. I also get Wait...Wait...Don't Tell Me, NPR's weekly news quiz show, and I laugh at most of the jokes they make. This entertains me on a basic level (I laugh) and also reinforces my belief that I'm pretty much aware of the important news stories of the week (if I didn't know what happened in the news, I wouldn't get their jokes, right?)
I read newspapers daily, usually online. I check headlines at the BBC and Boston Globe, I read the frontpages of the New York Times and the Washington Post. I get BU's Daily Free Press in my inbox every morning. I read online news magazines like Slate and Yes! about once a week, sometimes less.
I read a lot of blogs, and I do this every day. I read blogs about local news, political commentary, blogs about multimedia storytelling, blogs about environmental issues and how to be a more conscious consumer. I read blogs that make me laugh, like StuffWhitePeopleLike. (SWPL is probably the subject of a future post).
This morning, I logged onto my favorite blog, MultimediaShooter, only to find a message that it is no longer being published because it has been hacked, and I almost cried. It was a fantastic resource that offered examples of effective multimedia storytelling, reviews of helpful products and tools, and a source of general optimism about the state of the industry (even if it was the place where I first learned about AngryJournalist.)
But, before I do any of this, I check my email. Many mornings, facebook is the first website I visit, before I check the front page of NYTimes or the Globe headlines, or the Allston-Brighton TAB blog, and before I open iTunes to stream the WBUR newscast. Before I learn about news in the larger world I live in, I want to know who has tried to get in touch with me specifically, and if any of my personal acquaintances have written about important changes in their lives on their facebook profiles, or added pictures of things they experienced themselves. For years I've discounted this instinct as typical college procrastination, but I'm starting to think it's more than that.
During a roadtrip on Spring Break with several of my best friends, my buddy woke up from a catnap in the backseat and said, puzzled, "I just had a dream that Rachel Mennies died. I found out because it was on the front page of the New York Times." Rachel Mennies is a mutual friend of ours, and a fellow BU student. Everyone in the car responded right away with fairly predictable reactions-- "Oh, that's weird." "How did she die?" "That's kinda creepy, dude." and it took me a while to respond, contemplating in silence, but I said "Actually, I think you're on to something." I predict a convergence of social networking sites like facebook, and sites like digg that let you rate stories based on how much they interest you and sometimes track your reading patterns, to the point where, yeah, 10 years in the future, Marc might go to pull up "The New York Times" on his iPhone, and on the front page, there's a picture of Rachel Mennies and the headline is that she died because the newsgathering source "knew" that it would be the most interesting thing to tell Marc about the day's (or moment's) current events.
I think the direction we're moving is toward hyperspecialization, and super-targeted audiences. It's already happening in the blogosphere, where I can choose to get my news from sites that share my political views, sense of humor, and interests. I see this trend continuing, and I feel somewhat ambivalent. Someone ranted on AngryJournalist in caps lock, something along the lines of, "I hate journalism students who act nostalgic for newspapers-- YOU ARE NOT OLD ENOUGH TO BE NOSTALGIC!!" I kind of understand where this anonymous person was coming from, and I'm not sure that what I feel is nostalgia as much as a respect for some of what that medium offers that I think the internet has taken from us.
In newspapers, space was limited. The most important story of the day was on the front page, and the lead photo was big, front and center. Newspaper websites still put the most important story on their front page, but as soon as you click on a link, that story and photo is the same size as the lead story, and in the same position on your screen as the other would be. With a newspaper, if all you wanted to know was the score of last night's game, you had to first turn past the story about the local election scandal and the war in Iraq to the sports page. In the evening newscast, you had to listen to the newscaster run through a summary of the night's headlines and several of the stories before you saw some of the game's highlights. Either way, you had to physically interact with these stories. Now you can go straight to espn.com, or even get updated scores text messaged straight to your handset. What a news editor thinks is important need not have any impact on the speed with which you access the information that you want, because you know where to find it. I predict that even general news websites like the New York Times and Washington Post will become more and more customized, so that "the most important story of the day" will not be chosen by an editor-in-chief, it will be chosen by the reader, as generated by a previous selection of preferences.
I find the world of new media that we are immersed in fascinating and also scary, and I think 10 years in the future when potentially the concept of Marc's dream is a reality and hopefully not the specific content (Rachel is so great!) will be even more fascinating... Although I'll admit I find it kind of scary.
Introduction
As part of my final exam for a fantastic course I'm taking called "Impact of Race in America on the Media and the International Press", the professor, Ida Lewis, has asked that we keep a journal of our observations and thoughts regarding the mass media.
"You must analyze the media's view or influence on race, class, or gender issues in our society and your opinion or reaction. Each entry in the journal must be dated when you wrote it. There must be two entries a week. One or two pages per entry. The entry must be intellectually stimulated. Each entry must include a complete copy of each article, media story, cartoon, etc., referred to in the journal next to your dated entry about it. You may use a variety of sources (television, radio, magazines, cartoons, commercials, newspapers, etc.) including the internet."
I saw this as a great opportunity to publish myself (I have to do it anyway, why not share it in the form of a blog?) I also see it as a fantastic opportunity to take advantage of my social and academic network of intelligent, observant and involved friends and colleagues. One of the character traits I've been looking to improve in myself is welcoming debate and controversy more willingly, and expressing my opinions more often and more articulately, especially in the face of dissent. I invite you to comment and question the observations I put here. I don't want this to be a typical BS'd "journal for class" assignment if I can avoid it, I'd like it to be a place for intellectual stimulation and debate.
So, welcome to my journal! Click back once or twice a week and call me on my BS.
"You must analyze the media's view or influence on race, class, or gender issues in our society and your opinion or reaction. Each entry in the journal must be dated when you wrote it. There must be two entries a week. One or two pages per entry. The entry must be intellectually stimulated. Each entry must include a complete copy of each article, media story, cartoon, etc., referred to in the journal next to your dated entry about it. You may use a variety of sources (television, radio, magazines, cartoons, commercials, newspapers, etc.) including the internet."
I saw this as a great opportunity to publish myself (I have to do it anyway, why not share it in the form of a blog?) I also see it as a fantastic opportunity to take advantage of my social and academic network of intelligent, observant and involved friends and colleagues. One of the character traits I've been looking to improve in myself is welcoming debate and controversy more willingly, and expressing my opinions more often and more articulately, especially in the face of dissent. I invite you to comment and question the observations I put here. I don't want this to be a typical BS'd "journal for class" assignment if I can avoid it, I'd like it to be a place for intellectual stimulation and debate.
So, welcome to my journal! Click back once or twice a week and call me on my BS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
