The consumerist ethos that dominates our Western culture feels like a beast.  We live in this world of FAKE, because everything is bought on credit.  We are pressured by the stars or by each other to buy fancy cars and Coach purses in order to live up to this ideal lifestyle that is portrayed and then romanticized in the media.  Life is this weird competition of who can accumulate what.  Tabloid magazines are the most incredible form of advertisement out there.  We (quite possibly me, but I think I’m pretty normal) see what the celebrities are wearing- and we want those things.  It is, however, ironic that we want to have what the rich stars have, but then are so judgmental about their ways of life (probably doing things that we all do).  We demonize Christina Agulara for getting a boob job and Lindsay Lohan for drinking too much, but we drool over their Couture dresses?  We idealize what these celebrities have, but condemn them for what they do.  I wonder why this binary- to make us feel better about our credit card bills and our “regular” jobs?

I cannot pretend that I do not fall into this trap.  But it is sort of a survival technique.  If we are to argue that attractiveness is a component of the dominant class, then by default we must assume that we (whoever we is) work to increase our attractiveness. “stuff” is attractive, and if we are culturally literate we will be able to buy the right kind of stuff.  If we see the world through Prada sunglass LENSES then we will at least have the luxury of having social capital as we work to unpack its effects. 
 

I guess I could write a whole lot about symbols, but I’ll just check some. I won't go through the big American corporate ones, because they came later in my conscious life.

Let’s start by white, blue and red…honestly the very first thing that comes to my mind is the Chilean flag. Well, I’m Chilean what did anyone expect? Actually, I’ve just recently realized that the American flag sported the same colors, not that I’m color blind, it is just that for me white, blue and red bear the significance I was taught at school. The white is for our snowy mountains, the blue symbolizes the color of the sky — not any more, Santiago has one of the most polluted skies in the world, at least we get to be number one in something, right? — and the red stands for the blood our heroes bled in order to reach independence. How could I ever relate them to the U.S.??? It’s weird…I feel more Chilean now that I am here. Let’s do another one, the cross. I grew up Catholic– talking about big corporations — and although I have many fights with the Catholic-Church-hierarchies and dogmas I still find it hard to say I’m anything but Catholic. What does the cross represent to me? A reminder that Jesus Christ saved me, a reminder that I am in fact a believer, a reminder that I can be a better person, and that I must love others as I love myself. Actually the cross represents a myriad of things and I could write a lot about it but I don’t want to bore anyone. A third one, a blue owl with a red U on the chest, the symbol of the soccer team I cheer for in Chile, source of happiness and distress. My wedding ring, it reminds me I got married almost 14 years ago to my boyfriend of 8 years, the father of my sweet princesses, my shelter, my lover, my friend, my partner…not my other half, I am a whole person by myself, but the one that has been beside me through rough and smooth, for better or worse…my first pancake – in the words of Dr. Steinberg — and hopefully the last. If I think of my kids, thanks God my 2 year-old can’t tell what the golden arches are all about, but her pacifier, even the sight of it, is huge on calming her down.

Now that I’m somewhat more aware of them…there are hundreds of symbols, and they do inform not only our consciousness but our unconsciousness as well. They make us react, they fill us up with emotions…I can’t avoid feeling anguish and distress when I see a pointy white hood or a swastika. They are “just” symbols, but they carry history and intention. Most symbols have been carefully tailored to meet people’s needs, fears and desires, and they do the job quite brilliantly.

I agree, great class! I especially appreciated the time spent reminiscing about our childhood media memories –  existing in the tension created where nostalgia intersects with critical consciousness. Barbie was one image I carried with me as I walked to the beach this afternoon to do my reading and to reflect on the influence of media symbols on myself, my community, and my students. Whenever I think about Barbie though, GI Joe’s army fatigues inevitably pop up – for it seemed to be one or the other when I was growing up; either you’ve got the prettiest outfit & accessories, or else you’re tough enough to blow the competition to smithereens. Ever notice how, amid the myriad fashion trends over the years, camouflage has never quite gone out of style?

Speaking of symbols, I am currently looking at rich array on the Canadian Forces website (www.forces.ca - if you visit, be sure not to miss out on the TV ad which encourages enlisting in order to “FIGHT FEAR” and “FIGHT CHAOS” among other grand adventures). The whole website is rife with patriotic images, and caters most especially to marginalized peoples including visible minorities (which include “Black, Chinese and Japanese Canadians”), women, and Aboriginal peoples. All of these blurbs predictably espouse the duty and honour of serving in the Canadian military. In the case of visible minorities, for example, the website claims that to have earned the right to fight for the country meant success in the struggle against discrimination. And maybe on some level it was a success; certainly the Canadian Forces do offer some fantastic career opportunities and “free” education, if you’re willing to be inspected, scrutinized, and ordered around a whole lot. In effect, if you’re willing to play the game, you may reep the rewards… actually, it’s a very fitting ‘factory-style’ exercise for a  capitalist country’s defense strategy.

But I am not just interested because of my childhood nightmare of the limited, and highly gendered playground choices of GI Joes or Barbies. I spent the early years of my teaching career teaching in Northern Quebec on a Naskapi reserve. The community was isolated from the educational opportunities of the rest of the province and the school had no guidance counselor to assist graduates in making decisions about their future directions, be those to CEGEP (college), university, trades, or community programmes. These kids certainly didn’t have the University recruitment reps signing up to make presentations to students (the way they did at my high school). One organization, however, figured the 3- hour flight in a nine-seater to the small sub-arctic community was worth it. The Canadian Forces flew all the way to the tree line to talk to my students about specialized Aboriginal programming (during class time, of course). Glossy brochures, exciting videos, and promise of free travel & thousands of dollars remuneration for a few weeks of pre-recruitment training was more than enough for many to fill out applications. (Completely understandable, given the options presented -- too bad Dawson college or Sabtuan Regional Vocational Training Centre couldn’t also have made the trip). But I wondered, whose interests are being served by upping the number of Aboriginal soldiers in Canada’s military anyway?

A browse through the very separate and elaborate Aboriginal programmes website (http://www.forces.ca/interactive/cfaep/index.asp) reveals that according to Canadian Forces, Aboriginal peoples have a “proud tradition” of serving for Canada in several international conflicts. And further, that recruitment programmes are aiming to match the number of Aborignal, Metis & Inuit soldiers proportionally to Canada’s population demographics. The images of soldiers growing out of the ground and canoes morphing into submarines all to the tune of wolves howling suggests something a lot more insidious, however. But not to worry, the Canadian Forces does make “cultural accommodations” for First Peoples: “Aboriginal members of the CF can wear their hair long or braided.”  

But is the military a big, nasty, horrible beast? No, I do not seek to condemn the career choices of many, including Aboriginal peoples. In fact, a former student of mine joined because she liked to be physically active, and as non-heterosexual young woman, could not find acceptance in her conservative Christian (a lasting gift of early missionaries) community. For her, the programme was a way out, and on top of that is has afforded many opportunities she may otherwise not have had. I do however question the values propagated by the Canadian Military tradition, it’s motives vis-à-vis Aboriginal youth, and its recruitment strategy. Indeed, whose interests are being served by encouraging the Canadian government’s strongest resisters to join a Nationalist organization?

I think flags are interesting symbols . When I see the Canadian flag, I feel lucky to live in Canada. I see the Maple Leaf and think about the Canadian environment, vast and varied. I think about a friendly, multicultural country. And then the American flag enters my head. Like a migraine. Or maybe like an errant bullet from south of the border. I associate that flag with power, money, arrogance…and a bit of nausea, because I’m worried that Canada isn’t that different than our neighbours.

July 21/08

Thinking about our discussions today and curious to know what my 15 year old daughter and her 15 year old friend think -- I asked them who has the power in our society?   They were quick to answer; "Celebrities, because they just need to do something, say something, wear stuff, etc. and it becomes popular, then all the cheap stores want to copy them and sell it to us."  

I asked; "What if designers give them free stuff, or their managers restrict their image freedom and make them dress/look a certain way -- who is in control then?"  They still think celebrities are in control of themselves and while they agree that designers are using celebs as "free" models, they think it's kind of like the chicken and the egg thing -- who had the 'fashion/style' first, the designer or the celebrity.  Hmmm.  They vehemently believe that celebrities have far more 'control' over their own images than I believe they do and so I suspect I will embark on an eye-opening journey with my daughter over the next little while, more so than ever.  They found the question of “who has power” hard to answer, as they took it to mean political power, but when talking about the power of media and images they did talk a lot about the overrepresentation of anorexic white girls and even quoted stats – “Did you know that 15-20% of young girls have eating disorders.” When I asked what religious views are represented, they barely missed a heartbeat and answered in unison “Christianity” (neither of them believe in God).  "Ya, like even rappers thank God for making them famous."  When I asked them about talk shows, they both said they loved Ellen and David Letterman, but hated the Tyra Banks show because it’s “really boring, all about make-up and how to lose weight”.  They like Ellen because “she’s funny and really interesting and has interesting topics and funny skits and stuff and David Letterman because he interviews celebrities and has music on the show.”  I wonder what 3 shows I’ll be watching…?  Their guilty media pleasure is Camp Rock with the Jonas Brothers (a Disney product). Who knew? 

As long as we’re talking amongst ourselves (in the language of Linda Richmond)... I remember growing up in the 60’s with KRAFT Singles, Miniature-Marshmallows, Pizzas, KD, Velveeta Cheese, Cheese-Whiz…it seemed like if it wasn’t KRAFT, it wasn’t food. Sunday night wasn’t a Sunday on CBC without the voice of Bruce Marsh intoning in a rich voice… “Hi I’m Bruce Marsh with tonight’s KRAFT recipe”…invariably, the recipe contained KRAFT Miniature Marshmallows or Miracle Whip and sometimes both if you can imagine (both well known health foods!) Even today the slogan is “it’s gotta be KD”. This resulted no doubt in the unification of  “American Cuisine” where you gave-up or lost homemade products and a complex variety of foods derived from a multiplicity of ethnic origins – Slavic, Italian, Greek, Middle Eastern. Who was going to eat Mom’s pizza when you could make a KRAFT pizza in 20 minutes? And so we lost contact with many cultural foods (although now we seem to be gaining them back). The net effect of all this brainwashing is that I now avoid all KRAFT products although I might be buying KRAFT products unwittingly (perhaps hidden by another label). KRAFT just like Chevron with its red, white and blue lettering is the second largest North American food and beverage company). Note also that James L. Kraft was a Canadian!!  Thinking about all this makes me feel just a little “verklempt”! I’ll just leave you with this thought… Kraft dinner is neither a craft nor a dinner. Discuss.  

Watching the clips from televison shows of the 70s, 80s and 90s, I realize how much television I watched in my childhood. Even though we were pretty poor, we always had a tv and cable. I remember having little time for cartoons, but graviting towards shows like All In The Family, Maude, Good Times, Mary Tyler Moore, etc. I own some of these on dvd because they have a certain comfort for me.

Another thing that came to mind for me is how much I resented shows like Will and Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. When they first came out (no pun intended...well, maybe a little), I remember the eagerness to see any queer representation on the screen. But soon two things happened: 1. I lost interest in the superficial representations, and 2. I got so tired of people at work constantly referencing these shows in our conversations. It was like they thought they had a better understanding of who I was by watching these shows; or that by invoking them, they were showing me that they were 'liberal' people.

As for the readings...George Bush, and the people around him, scare me.

as I was watching CNN’s coverage of the 2008 presidential campaign, I kept thinking about the quote in Donald Macedo’s Deconstructing the Corporate Media/Government Nexus that “the propaganda apparatus makes the “bewildered herd” believe that they are active participants in the democratic process and not merely “spectators.”" CNN certainly tries hard to make the coverage appear interactive, but this still comes across as superficial. ‘expert’ analyst Bill Schneider tells the viewer about the opinion poll breakdown for each candidate: what percent of White males support Obama, what percent of Latino women support McCain, what percent of married couples in the military support Obama, what percent of Starbuck’s coffee drinkers support either candiadte ad nauseum…… the numbers make it appear that everyone’s ‘voice’ is being accounted for, but i wonder what effect or relevance any of these figures have on the actual outcome of the election. it would be more interesting to have a CNN analyst break down the campaign donations from major corporations and interest groups so that Americans can get a real sense of who is supporting whom and why. of course, this is not likely to happen, at least not in primetime. Neither CNN nor any of the other major networks covering the election would dare ‘distrub’ middle America with the shocking truth that this election, just as the previous ones, is being bankrolled and I would argue largely decided by the NRA, Big Business, the Christian Right, Planned Parenthood, and a number of other special interest groups. couched in these terms, it would seem that we are merely “speactators” in this election process, passively waiting for the latest poll data, or gossip about either candidate. Yet, CNN still tells us that we, especially those peole residing in the so-called ’swing states,’ are the ones deciding the election. As long as we (Americans) continue to delude ourselves that the present election process is democratic, CNN and the networks which cover the election will happily oblige and continue to spoon feed us ‘manufactured democarcy:’ opinion polls, staged interviews, photo ops, and pep rallies etc.

 I am grateful for the increased attention Pepi Leistyna and Loretta Alper’s Class Dismissed paid to the queer dimension of North American entertainment, a lens that was merely a foot note in their Media Literacy chapter. It’s been ten years since Ellen DeGeneres came out to North Americans on TV, and it’s true that since then, there has been more queer visibility on primetime. Of course it is also true that accepted characters are those who adhere to white, upper/middle-class values, and are either secondary  and “homely”, or else attractive and displaying “appropriate” gender characteristics. It’s like the entertainment media is saying first of all, that queerness exists (wow – it’s about time!), but also that if you’re going to be gay, you had better do it on the dominant cultures terms. Or if you’re not, you had better be damned funny. And that’s no guarantee: Ellen’s show was cancelled shortly after she came out – it seems she was no longer funny or entertaining once she was “out”. Critics said she was “too gay”.

The idea that one can have different levels of queerness implies that it’s like the volume knob: something that can be turned up, down, or even off. Like the working class from today’s film, apparently it’s a lifestyle choice. As such, it’s avisable that we choose an acceptable sort of queerness: (hetero-)sexy, fashion-savvy, wealthy, educated, professional. The L Word women certainly have it down pat. Lesbianism lived like those Hollywood bombshells means that they face absolutely no discrimination in their workplaces or otherwise. Coming out is made to look relatively easy (with the exception of Dana, the pro tennis player), and a singular experience (I don’t know anyone who only has one coming out story – it’s a constantly lived experience in a heteronormative & heterosexist society). Unfortunately, the audience has bought into this too, it seems. What of the fans’ controversy when the show introduced Max, a transitioning, transgendered man. Apparently, he is simply “too queer” for a show about mainstream lesbians. (Kudos to the show’s writers and producers for continuing to tell the story of Max’s evolving sexuality).

Despite The L Word’s  overwhelming abundance of wealthy and glamorous women however, it is still one of the only programmes made by & for a queer audience. I have to admit, my partner and I take pleasure in being able to watch non-heterosexual relationships on TV (even though the hollywoodization of said queerness, and the dominant culture’s censorship of said non-heterosexuality often have me screaming at the TV too). Certainly we need more entertainment media daring to make silenced and marginalized stories visible. We need more stories which make possible complex identities and alternative conceptions of reality. We need our youth to have more and diverse images of queerness that don’t present non-heterosexual identity as a switch or a dial. We need our public to understand that for many the M or F gender choice is oppressive. I believe the media have the capacity to communicate the idea that there’s no one box that fits all; but that it’s up to us to make it happen.

I enjoyed the discussions and the video we watched in class today. As I drove home, I thought about the discussion about the Asian invasion in Richmond and when another student made the comment some teachers claim they don’t see colour but later asked him if he was going to have an arranged marriage. I have been taking an online course about the Education of Immigrant Children and have had the opportunity to realize that we often make negative assumptions about certain cultural groups. I now understand that many of these assumptions and stereotypes come from negative portrayals in the media, TV sitcoms, and movies. 

I completely agree with the comment made today in class that North American’s are uncomfortable with colour. I also feel that North American’s are uncomfortable with different cultural values, beliefs and traditions. Throughout my course on the Education of Immigrant students, I observed my students playing at recess and lunchtime. I was shocked and saddened to realize majority of the white students only play with white students and the ‘coloured’ children play mostly with other ‘coloured' students. Why is this happening? Are they receiving negative messages from home or are they learning this behaviour from media?

As mentioned in an earlier post, as teachers we often pat ourselves on our backs after a multi-cultural event at school, but I can’t help but wonder if we are not adding to the perpetuated stereotypes portrayed in the media. In order to address these stereotypes, I believe we have to first look within ourselves and understand what our beliefs and values are first in order to help students living with difficult situations of belonging and fitting in. 

In the spring of 2004, I was working at a school where we were having a discussion about the amount of media time our students were plugged in.  At the time, I was concerned because students were reporting upwards of 6+ hours in the evening of screen time, ending at 11pm (or later).  They were tired and getting up late in the morning, not leaving enough time to eat breakfast and then coming to school hungry.  The effects were obvious to me-homework was not getting done, they were tired and hungry, easily distracted and their ability to think critically and persevere with difficult problems was limited.  After a bit of research on the net, I came across some very interesting lessons on media education that went beyond my concerns of the day, which was simply how much time they were spending watching TV and DVDs, playing video games and surfing the internet.  My staff met several times and began planning a week in September when we would turn off the TV and provide some activities at the school to help them fill their time.  This was to coincide with lessons in media education using some of the resources from the internet that I shared with my colleagues and a book for adolescents called, Made You Look: How Advertising Works and Why You should Know.  The sad part is that after all this discussion and planning, I went on Maternity Leave and it never happened.  The year after I came back from Maternity leave we went on strike and I have a lot of excuses why this topic didn’t go any further.

There are a lot of reasons to be critical consumers of media even if it is just to limit the amount of time spent doing one activity.  However, I’m looking forward to going beyond this in this course.

There is a television channel cater to almost every group of people that can be grouped or categorized.  WTV, HGTV, SPIKE, SPACE, YTV, Multicultural, Family, Disney, Discovery, Explore, MuchMusic, Bravo, A&E, OMNI, APTN, MTV, Vision, TVA, BNN, BET, Men TV, Bold TV, Sports, Foods….and the list goes on.  One can almost self identify oneself by which channel one watches.  I would watch Bravo or A&E if I were cultured.  I would watch Men TV, Bold TV, SPIKE or even SPACE if I were a man.  I would watch WTV, HGTV or Foods if I were a woman.  I would watch Multicultural channel if I am of an ethnic background.  You get the point.  The fact that television channels have target audiences, the audiences will conform to the categorization by watching the channels that are supposed to be catering to them, and often will only admit to the channels that they should be watching.  How many males would admit to their friends that they like watching WTV or Fashion TV?  How many adults would admit that they like watching Saturday morning cartoons when they should be watching BNN?  We, ourselves, perpetuate network’s categorization of what we think is supposed to be appropriate for us (gender, age, status) to watch, and dare not venture out the boundary or at least admit to watching something which is not specifically cater to them.

I go to ladies’ gym and have heard repeatedly from members asking other members not to turn the television to Foods Channel at the gym.  Why not?  Can’t a person watch Sugar and exercise at the same time?  I’m a sci-fi fan, and enjoy watching CSI series.  Ladies at the gym would usually change the channel without checking whether anyone is watching it.  Does one have to be a male to watch these types of show?

I think I’ll go to my gym this Saturday to watch Saturday morning cartoons and Disney shows….I wonder what kind of reactions I’ll get….

Denise Richards says she is "Pooped" on her reality TV show after avoiding the paparazzi.  I am "Pooped" also.  I have just ended a three hour "Reality TV" marathon with my roommate in search of the working class.  I watched Houswives of OC, Kimora Lee, Kardashians, Lohans and Denise Richards. WOW.  Watching these shows, one would assume the world has no working class at all.  The have vanished.  Only the plight of the wealthy, in various manifestations, is acknowledged.  But this is a poor reading of the landscape of these shows.  The shows are dotted with the working class in various forms.  Shadowy figures that enter and leave scenes leaving hints of there existence but nothing tangible to hang your hat on.  They take the form of waiters, maids, drivers, yard workers etc. but are really like ghosts.

Watching Class Dismissed has the annoying effect of compelling one to search for the working class in whatever is on the television, whether one wants to or not.  I can't stop doing it.   It's like playing with a hangnail.   It's sort of  painful, but in a weird way,  would be disappointing if it were to fall off.

The stars of these shows have made it on their own, or their families' efforts.  The ones who have not tried hard are the wraiths that move in and out of the camera's view too help with the lives of those who have made it.  They are crutches to the elite because they fail to prop themselves up.  They are accoutrements to the lives and abilities of the winners in society because they refuse to earn a win for themselves.  I wonder what the late night talk shows will bring. 

 The bulk of the class today was spent watching the video “Class Dismissed”, which was very interesting but what really piqued my interest was the conversations surrounding ethnicity.  I particularly enjoyed the talk on Richmond and their monster homes.  When I got home today, I did a quick search on a government website and found that Richmond has the highest proportion of foreign-born persons of all municipalities in Canada.  Oh yeah, one other small insignificant statistic is that 60% are Asian-Canadians.  So it is no wonder that Richmond is usually chosen as the hotbed for ethnic discussion.  I’m not defending the purchase of monster homes (more for environmental reasons), but when one has lived in a 500 square foot house all your life and now can afford 5,000…Bob’s your uncle .  Isn’t North America the land of opportunity and capitalism?  Are we jealous of their success?  I can understand that aesthetically 300 pink monster homes packed together does not look pretty.  But their Mercedes 500SL convertible parked in the driveway sure does.  I realize that it looks on the surface like the Chinese community is taking over Richmond.  Make no mistake about it (in the words of Bush), they are taking over Richmond.  China with its 1.3 billion people is the most populated country in the world.  Year after year Vancouver is voted as one of the top 3 places to live in the world.  It is no wonder that when the immigration gates opened, the Chinese flooded into the Vancouver area.  So when people talk about why there is a 13th floor in new condominium buildings but no 4th floor, and why more and more signs are in Chinese, it’s because the Chinese are carving their territory.  This is no difference than the Europeans bringing their culture and values to the First Nations.  What’s more hideous, hedges or monster homes?  I’ll let you decide.  On a side note, India is the 2nd most populated country with 1.1 billion.  Surrey, you better start marking your territory.  Wait, it’s too late.

As I read and prepare our presentation, the anger starts accumulating in my heart. Don't misinterpret. The reading is great. The process of preparing the presentation is also a rewarding experience. I feel angry, because of outrageous war criminals' attempt to manipulate peoples through media and because of my apolitical stance. I used to think that politics had nothing to do with me; my vote would not make any difference, and only politicians concern about politics. Now I start to understand that refusal to politics means almost giving up ones' rights and obligations, which is probably a thing that those outrageous politicians love us to do. By controlling media, these politicians (mostly funded by big corporations) distort, fragment, and decontextualize information. They also manipulate language in hope of taking advantage of patriotic individuals. They attempt to mediate individuals' meaning making process, by provide misinformation, fragmented information, and partial information. For them, 'attack' equals 'accident'; 'invade' equals 'self-defense'; 'kidnap' equals 'arrest'; 'violence' equals 'retaliation'. Literally, they can do almost anything they want, at any cost including violating constitution and UN charter, and killing women and babies.

When Thomas Friedman, columnist for The New York Times, wrote that all Serbs must be punished, because they have "tacitly sanctioned" the deeds of their leaders, did he think he should be punished because he was supporting those war criminals? If his definition of guilt is not completely wrong, I think we all should be punished by being apolitical, by allowing those war criminals rule the country. Yes, what I just talked is mainly U.S. based. We should not forget our soldiers are still, in Iraq, side with those war criminals, shoulder by shoulder. What should we do? How far are we away from our informed decision under the invisible coercion of media?

Awareness, (blog 3)

R.Sweeney

September, 23/2008

After doing some of the readings for this class, if I was an American I would almost be afraid to live in the United States.  The readings are bringing up a lot of negative content regarding the United States government.  I am almost having trouble believing the information because of its shocking nature.  As a citizen of the United States I would be a little apprehensive as to what my own government was capable of and what other counties governments were capable of in relation to retaliating against the United States.  If it is this bad in the United States, what about here in Canada?  Is our government just as evil and devious as the United States government?  It seems as though Canada is not as powerful as the United States, however is our media withholding information as well?  As stated in the video we watched today on politicians and media, is our media practising omission as the United States media is?  What a very scary thought.  How naive are we to think that the news is actually the news?  Now I am going to be constantly wondering what is our media not telling us?  From the readings and reading how the United States government treated the Hurricane Katrina victims was astonishing.  Treating New Orleans as a war zone instead of a disaster zone was disheartening.  As the book stated, because most of the victims were poor and black the military was sent in treating the survivors as aggressors instead of victims.  A strong statement in the text that I thought was worth mentioning was the statement that if you are black and poor society does not want, care about, or need you.  The thought that people are disposable is unbelievable!  I am wondering if these facts are true, and the United States government feels this way and works in this manner, how is Bush still the president?  If democracy is practiced and if there are as many poor people as stated in the text book, aren’t they using their voice in protest?                     

I am mad at myself for being surprised during today’s class, when the video revealed that public concern over an issue is directly related to the attention that the media pays to the issue.  After some reflection, I cannot pretend that I do not fall into the same trap and adopt issues in my consciousness as they appear in the news.  I am all over hot topics, but hold very few issues as truly relevant.  How does a regular person rage against this machine…. especially in light of the fact that the academic on the video ended with the message: “ it’s hard to see how things can change.”     I guess there is really no excuse for ME.  In the words of Oprah: “once you know better, do better.”.  I can be a more responsible consumer; I can seek out alternative news sources, or at the very least think about and question the message.  I can choose to look at news through a critical perspective and find the source of power.      I am lucky though, I have the intellectual, cultural, and social capital to be able to question news or seek out alternative sources.  I have the power to question the power – which is not a luxury that can be afforded to everyone.    

After reading Waheeda’s blog today “Is George W. a comedian or a joke?” I had some lunch and then proceeded to check my e-mail on Yahoo.  One of the featured news clips was of (surprise, surprise) another George W. Bush gaffe.  This one was a metaphor to explain the housing-market meltdown.  His analogy was “Wall Street got drunk.  It got drunk and now it’s got a hangover”.  The video shows George joking with his fundraising audience about the housing crisis and his life when he leaves the White House.  Andy’s blog today echoed the same sentiment as Waheeda, in that America’s leader and president is the butt end of talk show jokes and used as a political puppet. 

I agree with you Andy that we should treat our leaders with respect.  I would go further and say that we should treat everyone with respect.  But it is so hard to respect George Bush after seeing him laughing and joking with his audience in the fundraiser luncheon about the housing crisis.  This is just poor taste and shows his lack of respect and compassion towards his nation that is suffering from the sub-prime mortgage crisis.  Watching today’s video reinforced the fact that Bush and his administration have their own agenda, greed.  Wealth accumulation at the expense of Third World countries, innocent civilians, and American men and women both at home and abroad.   One statistic in the movie that we watched in class today that I have a hard time grasping is the contrast of the US defense budget to the defense budget of the 7 countries that pose the greatest threat to America.  300 billion dollars to 17 billion dollars!  Who else are they defending against?  Jesus? 

I find it very difficult to respect anyone that has no moral compass.  Sacrificing life for monetary gain should be a crime.  Yes, maybe the argument is that countries have been doing it for centuries.  But that does not make it right.  A good leader should do what is in the best interest of the people, not the corporations that paid to put him in power.  But I guess that’s why the saying goes, “Money is the root of all evil”. 

 After class today, it would be easy to just watch mindless TV for a long time, but I limited myself to So You Think You Can Dance  (SYTYCD) and then moved onto BBC WORLD NEWS to listen for the language of purring, snarling, put downs, and the playing down of violence.  First of all, there is so much going on the screen with the little text boxes sliding in and out of the quick bits -- it's like a giant ad.  Then there's the ticker tape like info, the logo, & the title of the piece or reporter's name, that's it's distracting from the "content".  You have to really focus on the talk to pick out the intended meaning or message and that's hard for someone so easily distracted like myself.  Topics included:

extradition -live in Belgrade.  He was "an audacious war-crime fugitive" according to the BBC and a "hero" according to his neighbour.  "Serbia's "hard line nationalists" are protesting in support.

Oxfam, worst cases of starvation in Afar, N. Ethiopia. "draught, armed conflict, and rising food costs take their toll" "the battle to survive"  "desperate when the camels start to die"  "falling victim to global food prices"  "catostrophic consequences for Ethiopia and its neighbours"  "the price of grain has doubled in a year"  "critical situation" "isolated from the world outside"  "see what you can do to help on the BBC website" (The armed conflict was never mentioned again in the main story but see how they got a plug for themselves with this emotional story).

illegal downloading in Britain, "sending letters to parents who will be surprised to find out their children have been breaking the law" "supported by the internet carriers"

"Obamamania -- could it be going overboard in Germany?"Germans like Obama and are "excited about Obama coming to Berlin"  People are willing to fall in love again with the US".  "In Germany, Obama is often compared to JFK"  "He is no Kennedy, but he is young, a good speaker, and he promised the American people change and that's the same as what JFK did."  "There is a problem, the risk is high because Obama will ask Germany to participate in more troops and more money in Afghanistan and it will be harder for Germans and politicians to say no to him,"

So, what did I think?  Well, not quite the same as listening to those CNN talks we heard today, but still there is a usage of language that sensationalizes most things and trivializes the more serious issues.  Overall, it was interesting to see how things got painted in broad sweeps and I was trying hard to pay attention!  I can't imagine that most people get much more out of this news than the broad strokes.  It's like the reverse of an impressionist's painting, which becomes more obscure the closer you look at it -- only when you really zero in on things can you make a picture in your head of what's going on, but if you're watching the news and eating dinner, or anything else, then it will be a giant series of verbal splotches that imply a story.  Not only that, if I wanted to get the implied picture, it was work to figure it out.  Do most people watch TV to "work" at making sense of things?  Are we all brainwashed to be spoon fed the information so that we can make ourselves believe we're informed, but then focus on the "fun" stuff like SYTYCD?  Are we 4Real, 4Real? How do we maintain our critical eye and our critical ear?

When it rains it pours! Having opened the pandoras box  of the influences of media, I just caught a show on CBC called Teens and Screens (See blurb below)

July 21 and July 23: Teens and Screens

Alien Nation Host Judith Mackin wonders at the high-tech world occupied by her teenage son and his friends. It's a world where teens appear to lose time, perspective and a sense of responsibility. Judith's son, Robyn and class mate Drew talk about their cyber bullying experience which has an unpredictable ending. Other students talk about their on-screen lives on Facebook, YouTube and video games. Do real friendships exist on line? Is the world of pixels a genuine and meaningful place to meet and work out real relationships?

Was surprised to hear how many of the teens believed their cyber worlds to be more real than reality.  The candid conversations about bullying and how prevelent it is should be heard by all teachers and parents- the predicted effects on students lives at school and at home is shocking.  By spending countless hours on line and engaged with digital media, more teens are admitting to starting to loose the connections to society and societal norms- which scares me.  My parents used to call the TV the idiot box, which meant I was not raised by it.  But so many children today are, what are going to be the effects? Will educating students about the influences of media be enought to counter the current trends? Todays movie, Constructing Public Opinion, pointed out the correlation between media broadcasts and public opinions so how do we gain the power to formulate our own opinions?    

I may be too arrogant to say that I really don’t give too much attention to politics or any at all. I usually catch bits here and there, not enough to know what is really happening, only enough to keep me current about what’s going on. But does it matter if I do pay more attention I would be better informed? I do believe I’m not the only one who is in this state of mind-frame when it comes to politics. I am concerned about our social welfare and country’s welfare, which has everything to do with politics, but I never feel that I’m getting the right information to make a correct judgment. I always feel like it’s a guessing game of who is telling the truth or truth according to whom.   

 as I came across an article on MSN entitled "Once a migrant worker, today he’s a brain surgeon," I was reminded of the video we saw in class on Tuesday. the article celebrates the rise of a poor Mexican illegal immigrant, who once labored in the sun picking produce, to an internationally reknown Harvard medical researcher. sure, it's an uplifting story, but I think it serves to reinforce the myth of the American dream: if you work hard, regardless of your ethnic or socio-economic background  you will make it and relish in the good life. How many immigrants don't  'make it'? What about the millions of Americans who live below the poverty line and can't afford health insurance? What about the millions of Americans who can'ts afford to provide their children post-secondary education?

by focusing on the achievement of one success story, MSN ignores the plight of the millions of Americans who live in poverty. in the article, the migrant worker turned brain surgeon addresses the problem facing poor Mexicans and why there is illegal immigration:

“Can we build walls?” he asks rhetorically. “Sure, we're gonna build walls. Can we make ’em taller? Sure, we can make ’em taller. Would that be a solution? As long as there's poverty, and as long as people are dying of hunger in other places, it's human nature. They will try to find better ways

Unfortunately, MSN does not comment on his remarks. the message from the article is that nothing needs to be changed  regarding the status of illegal immigrants and that nothing needs to be done to help the poor since if they work hard, they will succed:

Ironically, the brain surgeon followed his heart, not his brain: He became a U.S. citizen rather than return to Mexico a hero. He felt he owed this country for all the opportunity it had given him

here's the link to the article:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/25802159/&GT1=43001

Come on people.  Loosen up.  My second life will probably be way better than this life I have been living.  A little escapism is what we need.  I might just down a bottle of Bacardi instead.

The websites we went to today were very alarming.  What is it about our reality that the second we are offered an escape, we take it.  Food, drugs, shopping, soap operas, volunteering for a non-profit etc.  Why are we so agitated by our existence that we just want to run away from it.  Watch people on campus.  They can't be dismissed from class for six seconds and they are on their phones, turning on their ipods etc.  I grew up with a few Buddhist families and I use to feel so bad for them.  Always smiling and mediating and tantraing it up.  I thought they were lacking so much in the way of modern conveniences.  Now I am checking email the last thing before i go to sleep and checking again first thing in the morning.  How important have I become that the one update from classmates.com has got me turning on my computer, brushing my teeth, and looking for clean underwear to put on all at the same time. The wheel of karma has officially punched me in the face.

Our environment has definitely added to our general searching for things to do with ourselves.  But the sinister thing is that now we are creeping on facebook, watching strangers on youtube and checking how many people have responded to our lovely blogs.  We are busy watching others, watch us.  Well the postmodern world is kicking my ass.  But boy is it ever fun!

 Miss Bimbo, Girlicious, Tela Tequila, Girls Gone Wild, these are only a small representation of the over-sexed media that we are exposed to on a daily basis.  The media operates on one simple premise, sex sells.  And as we have discussed in class, the government and those that own the media only care about profits.  Morals and values are cast at the wayside when there is a buck to be made.  As a physical education teacher I promote healthy eating, an active lifestyle, and a positive self-image.  But I realize that I am fighting a losing battle when every TV channel that I turn to promotes and glamorizes superficiality.  This is not a new phenomenon, but this over-sexed programming used to be played down on primetime TV and only shown in the late hours of the night.  What I find troubling is this programming has filtered down into daytime shows, youth TV, and even children’s TV channels.  So where does this leave us?  Is only understanding that we are being mediated enough?  Do we want all of society to be pimped out and skanked out?  I can say that I do appreciate the female body (thanks to Mr. Lululemon) but this is only one aspect of humanity.  I feel that it takes time to nurture a relationship and to find out all the beautiful aspects of an individual.  But we have grown up in a “now” society.  Fast food, instant tellers, and wireless internet to name a few.  We do not have the time anymore to marinate and let meat simmer for hours, or have the time to talk to the teller and know that she just had a baby, or we do not have the time to write a letter and wait a few weeks for a reply.  We certainly don’t have the time to get to know someone and to find out their lived experiences.  It just takes too long.  Ttyl.

This was a very interesting site. It talks about reporting of hearsay and the "personalities" of newsmen getting in the way of the truth.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/weather/july-dec05/media_9-29.html

The continued discussion of "other" caused me to reflect on Cal's question of whether or not it is best for a group to represent its self as a collective whole in order to see progress (my personal summary of the question). I began to wonder how those who partially belong to that group would feel, for instance, what about someone who has parents from two different cultures? Do they have to choose to associate themselves with or do they represent a different group entirely?

There's a show my husband and I watched tonight called Baby Borrowers. It was on earlier in the week. We recorded it and decided to watch it tonight. The show is about young teenage couples who are wanting to, and feel like they're ready to have children. None of the couples are married or live together from what I understand. The show places each couple in a beautiful house in a quiet, upscale neighbourhood. Each couple has to take care of an infant for 3 days, a toddler for 3 days, a pre-teen child for 3 days, a teenager for 3 days and a senior citizen for 3 days. A nanny is also in each house in case if any of the teenage couples is potentially harming any of the children they are taking care of. The nanny only observes-she does not help them unless the children are in any physical danger and the real parents of the children are also watching on a monitor in close proximity to the house. I thought initially the show sounded like an interesting experiment that would allow each couple to see the real struggles and hardships of parenting. Various parents volunteered the 'use' of their children for the couples to be responsible for. There are a few reasons I feel that this show is completely unrealistic. First of all, what teenage couple has their own beautiful, fully furnished home to live in with their partner and their kids that didn't cost them a penny to buy?!?! The homes are large, gorgeous, have granite countertops, stainless steel appliances and are very modern. Each teenage couple is also given a brand new minivan they get to drive around-once again for free. One of the teenage parents must stay home with the kid(s) while the other one must go and work. For every day of work they put in, they earn $100.00. Minimum wage in the US on average is $6.55 an hour. If my math is correct, that means that each parent should be working around 15 hours a day as none of the teenagers have any post secondary education. Most of the jobs the teenagers were given involved working either in fast food restaurants or doing some form of manual labor. It sure didn't seem like they worked 15 hours a day so lucky them. The financial strain most teenage couples with kids face was definitely not portrayed in this show. I believe Baby Borrowers to be a misrepresentation of reality. Who knew reality shows were not really reality? Hmmm, weird.

In class on Friday we got into small groups and the group I was in shared stories on being othered. We were all from different background, religions, cultures, upbrining etc. but we all universally felt that there are always times when one will feel othered.  Even within marginalized groups othering occurs. 

Sometimes othering occurs through perpetual stereotypes about certain groups in society and certain symbols associated with groups.  For me personally, things get very complicated when I put my own liberal notions forward and assume that certain images should offend specific groups of people.  Let me give an example here.  A somewhat cherry picked and not so clever of an example so please indulge me.

When watching a NFL football game with an Aboriginal person from the"X" Nation, I make the following comment:

"I am sorry that the Washington Redskins refuse to change the team name.  It must be very offensive to you, as it is to me."

Response: "It actually doesn't  matter much to me.  Names have never offended me, but the way people treat me might."

Nevermind if this member of the X Nation has been intellecutally colonized, assimilated etc. The point I am trying to make is that individuals don't all just receive media and its messages down a one way street.   There seems to be a deal of participation and negotiation in what messages are offensive to individuals.  Stuart Hall's notion of coding/encoding comes to mind.  Within marginalized groups offensive texts are not universal.  For me this problematizes the liberal notion of which texts should be deemed with the power to "other" marginalized groups.

Hi All,

Thanks for a great class on Friday.  I found our discussion "Othering" to be really great.  I wish we could have had more time for discussion.

I wanted to provide some resources as a follow up to our presentation.  I went to Xwi7xwa library (http://www.library.ubc.ca/xwi7xwa/). The First Nations library on campus and found out that the Musqueam book is not in any bookstores at the moment.  However, there are four copies that will be in circulation at UBC soon.  If you would like to purchase the book, please email the Musqueam band office for more info: webinfo@musqueam.bc.ca.  I believe that they are selling the books privately for now.

Follow this link for a copy of the 2007/2008 Canadian Aboriginal Books for Schools.  (I am not trying to promote the Association of Book Publishers, but they provide a really great catologue of new Aboriginal books for elementary and secondary students which can be found at Xwi7xwa or purchased from another retailer) http://www.books.bc.ca/images/pdfs/AbCat2007.pdf

I also read another fantastic book by Sherman Alexie (the writer of "Smoke Signals) that is geared for Aboriginal youth.  "The Absolute True Diaries of a Part-Time Indian" (Published by Little Brown Books Young Readers,2007) It is also a great read for adults.  Sherman made me laugh, cry and pee my pants all at the same time.  He is a truly gifted writer.  I am going to give this book out for Christmas presents this year.  Here is the synopsis:

"In his first book for young adults, bestselling author Sherman Alexie tells the story of Junior, a budding cartoonist growing up on the Spokane Indian Reservation. Determined to take his future into his own hands, Junior leaves his troubled school on the rez to attend an all-white farm town high school where the only other Indian is the school mascot. Heartbreaking, funny, and beautifully written, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, which is based on the author's own experiences, coupled with poignant drawings by acclaimed artist Ellen Forney, that reflect the character's art, chronicles the contemporary adolescence of one Native American boy as he attempts to break away from the life he was destined to live."

Her is another website that reviews Aboriginal books:

www.oyate.org.

Happy Reading!

 It’s hard to know where to begin when I’m irked by so much of what I have watched and read in the last 2 days.  It all began by sitting in the doctor’s office and picking up a sport’s mag, which is something I never do.  The majority of the mag was devoted to NASCAR and it showed happy white guys, or car crashes, and seemingly related safety stories.  However, the story that caught my eye was the tiny rectangular article about Mauricia Grant, billed as the fired black woman, who is suing NASCAR.  When I came home I did some research on the net and soon became livid at the MSN FOX NASCAR blog and the despicable comments about her case.  Perhaps I am a naive blogger, but what I read today made me ill. There were so many horrid things said that I can’t even put my thoughts together. 

Then I couldn’t bear to watch the PVR’d episode of Dr. Phil, one of the many spawns of Oprah.  It will be Sunday’s torture, as the episode is about an older man who has raped a young girl, who he said seduced her, and her family’s fight to keep the baby, and the girls total confusion.  I will need to go for a long run before and after that.

Today’s Saturday cartoons sound as though they were as disappointing for me as they were for Dorothy.  I can’t believe how void of story they were.  One was on YTV and the other was on the CW.  Both half hour shows I watched were peppered with multiple commercials for Sketchers, McDonald’s, sugary drinks, sugary cereal, and the horrifying N-strike recon blaster, a water gun, (and I had to rewind it to make sure I heard the name right).  I don’t usually watch commercials, as I PVR pretty much everything I watch and fast-forward through them.  It doesn’t spare me from the imagery, it just comes at me faster, but it does save me from the mindless chatter that tells me “you suck if you don’t have this”.  On that note, an excellent website to check out is www.storyofstuff.com, where the whole consumer process is explained in a 20 minute animated video.  You can learn about things like planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence, among many other important issues. 

As for the cartoons, one was called Ruby Gloom (yes, it has a website) and was very Tim Burtonesque (produced by Nelvana in Toronto).  It was hard to figure out the plot and it was hard to figure out it’s target audience, but I would say girls and other animators, as Ruby is a kind of red haired – Goth like white rag doll who likes to help others and write in her journal.  She has a variety of friends.  She is friends with a black puffin named Poe with a kind of British accent and a penchant for poetry, a one eyed white girlfriend (Iris), someone named Skullboy dressed in high-tops, with a skull belt to match his skull head and he is “unsure of himself”.  Then there’s the 2-headed boy, Frank and Len.  One has a blue head and arm; the other has a green head and arm.  They have a band called RIP and they hate “writer’s block”.  Her black cat is called Doom Kitty.  There are other characters listed on the website, but I didn’t see them in this episode, where Ruby tries to help Poe find a pet.  In the end he finds Mr. Buns, a black sock puppet.   The story was lame, but the overall design held my interest.  It had a kind of beatnik feel to it that made it feel like it could have potential and if my daughter was younger, I’d likely let her watch it. I checked out the accompanying web and one of the links was to a Goth like site called hot topic. Another link was to an independent female artist called Jeen O’Brian, and the other one was a Japanese Female musician called Nana Kitade. –all very interesting.

The other show was Batman and it involved a hacker creating a nanobot version of the Joker who escaped from the computer and tried to take over the real Joker, who ends up being saved by Batman and Robin after much shooting/fighting, but also put in jail.  Robin sounded very young to me and seemed so much smaller than Batman, and I didn’t remember a huge difference between the TV characters of the 60s, but when I looked it up, there was.  I was really bored with this one and only noticed that the only female character played a jester with a gangster type “moll” personality – certainly not an identity I would like my daughter to aspire to, and her only lines usually involved the word puddin’ in reference to her boyfriend the joker. All in all, it was the advertising that really got to me.    

Last Friday I choked myself on talk shows. I realized I had passed by them but had never really paid real attention to any of them. I started with Dr. Phil (thank you Pumpkin for clarifying that he’s just as much a Dr. as I am…why would anyone bear the Dr. title if he’s not a Dr….well it sells more right? I get it). I found interesting the way he always tried to keep the whole thing balanced. There was a father whose daughter had been given in adoption without his consent. The mother’s father had come with the idea of giving the child in adoption. Everybody, including the father’s mother could visit the baby (it was an open adoption…new concept to me), but the father couldn’t. Dr. Phil brought the corresponding lawyers and had a member of an organization that defends fathers’ rights to explain the situation from a neutral point of view??? He tried to keep things objective, but he subtly showed sympathy for the daddy and the studio audience got it and clapped the dad every time they had the chance to. At the end he offered copies and transcripts of the show for $? I didn’t think it was that terrible…I saw a lot more dignity than in Wilko’s show…and this story could actually help other fathers in the same situation. Then I jumped to Oprah and Middlesex (Pulitzer Prize included). Helen already described the show…but I was so shocked she, Oprah Winfrey, was not able to say vagina??? Is it a bad word? Not that I go around saying vagina every 5 seconds but please let me know…I get lost in translation all the time and what for me is a part of the feminine anatomy may be an insult for any English speaking person??? I don’t want to offend any one. I don’t think it was necessary to have the three intersexed people to advertise the book. It would have been enough with explaining the concept…at least for me… I knew the term hermaphrodite, but it seems “people” don’t want to be called that anymore (Oprah said so) so now it’s intersexed (it sounds a bit like “food challenged” to me)… She seemed more interested in the kind of sex life these people had than in the social and personal challenge it represents for them to relate to others, but was not able to ask about it in a straight-forward manner. It seemed to me that she tries to be really deep but she doesn't deliver. It was also weird to see her talking about her magazine in third person, as if she was just another big fan of somebody else’s product… I used to love her…because I hadn’t seen her! (weird version of "I used to leve her but I had to kill her" by Guns 'n Roses) Last but not least…I watched Ellen De Generes…I can’t be very objective here…I love her! I find her hilarious…she laughs at others and at herself non-stop. Is her show intended to be deep and thoughtful? I don’t think so. She’s just trying to have and give a good time…does everything have to be so intense 24/7? She sells Honda, movies to come, and gives the most absurd beauty tips ever! I still love her…sorry…should I feel guilty?

The second talk show I watched was the Tyra Banks show.  Seems like Tyra is trying too hard to be Oprah.  She has this lower budget, lower class version of the same show. 
I watched an episode where Tyra had on a couple of really young porn stars.  Tyra gave them a voice to tell their stories, but as soon as they were done she launched into the judgmental criticism of what they were doing.  Not that I am necessarily for or against pornography, but I am for not judging the choices of others.  In theory Tyra presented both sides of the pornography world: she had on a women who felt pornography emancipated her sexual practices as well as a women who felt like porn destroyed her.  But, Tyra vilified the woman who liked porn and assumed that there was something wrong with her.  In contrast she praised the women who was destroyed by porn and applauded her courage to tell her story.  There was no attempt at objectivity. 
Tyra seems to take on this persona where she is the voice and savior of womanhood.   She tells stories about her mother, and her old boyfriends, and her vagina so we can see her as a real person and we can bond together over our womanly woes.  But apparently you have to be a certain kind of woman for Tyra to want you in her club.  
 

      This episode that I found on Youtube.com was about Teen Prostitute. A 16 years old teen prostitute and her mother were interviewed during the first half of the show. One 18 years old Porn Star was interview during the second half. I thought the issue that Tyra brought up was important, and expected Tyra could lead a discussion to warn other teenagers and their parents.

Victoria, from a white mid-class family, became a teen prostitute at the age of 14. When she was 15, she started to take cocaine. She kept her mother in ignorance until she turned 16 years old. When asked why she wanted to be a teen prostitute. She said she wanted to buy ‘new things’, “new cloth” and “new accessories,” but she could not find a job. She did baby sitting for a while, but she could not make enough money. She chose to be a teen prostitute, because she can make $150 in five minutes. She also said she made up a story to make her clients to believe she was 19 years old. However, after these men eventually knew Victoria was only 14/15 years old, many of them still came back for Victoria. The story was shocking. 

To my surprise, when I was still expecting Tyra to provoke the discussion and dig into the real forces that pushed the girl into prostitution, Tyra turned to a ‘medical expert,’ Dr. Drew for help. The explanation we got from Dr. Drew was that most destructive sexual behaviors could be traced back to sexual trauma in one’s early life. Victory nodded and said she was sexually abused when she was 5 years old. Tyra was excited about the new discovery and said “Dr. Drew, you are always right.” Then, Dr. Drew continued his remark on the inter-generational component of trauma. Victoria’ mother nodded and said she was sexually abused when she was young. According to Dr. Drew, soon the whole issue of teen prostitution turned out to be a problem of gene. It all sounded very scientific. Dr. Drew then comforted the mother by saying that “mom did all the right stuff,” and suggested the mom and the girl receive some treatment or professional intervention to stop passing the trauma from one generation to another.

All Dr. Drew’s personal attributes, such as mid-age, white, English-speaking, titled as a medical expert, made what he said credible and authentic. According to him, there was no problem with the media and no problem with the commercialism saturated society. Why didn’t he explain why the girl kept wanting ‘new stuff’ and why those men who knew the girl was only 14/15 years old still came back for more? Would those problems be solved by ‘psychological treatment’?

I guess I expected too much from Tyra. Tyra show is just a show for entertaining or for taming audiences to accept ideas and concepts from the dominant culture. 

The clips are retrieved on July 27, 2008 from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fx3SrhmqOtQ&feature=related ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TmcvUQlJb0&feature=related ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8dIxHSxeUk&feature=related )

I’m talk-showed out! I know that we’re suppose to blog about talk shows but I’m deviating from the task for my own sanity sake. Without sounding too high and mighty, it’s been years since I’ve been tied down to a screen and subjected to endless “self-satisfying” talk that talk hosts such as Ellen, Oprah and Dr. Phil ( Doctor of what?). Our TV has only three channels (thank god) so my TV “talk show” homework watching was carried-out via You-tube. For Saturday night “fun” we watched Jesus Camp.
This documentary was made by a largely female group who wanted to show people another remarkable facet of American religious fervor. This time it’s adults indoctrinating children into a “war” against liberalism. Incidentally, this movie has been rated as a Horror film in IMdB (the Internet Movie Database). You get to see savant-like children staring unblinking into the camera, and thus into your face mouthing what can only be described as well-learned phrases from the lexicon of fundamental right-wing Christians.

In one jaw-dropping scene, children are asked to beseech god to help President Bush, holding up a life-sized cardboard image. The children then touch the cardboard hand and all but worship the image. Didn’t Moses bring down some tablets that forbid Christians from worshipping graven images?

At the very beginning of the doc train-wreck Pastor Becky Fischer starts preaching to an audience of pre-teens. She’s like a train wreck because we can’t believe it’s happening, we can’t stop watching her, and there’s nothing that anyone can do to stop her. Her off the cuff speech tries to win disciples for her “summer camp”, which one reviewer from ImDb said resembled Triumph of the Will, which was a documentary made in 1939 showing the Nazi Nuremberg rallies. At the “camp” we are introduced to a couple of 12 year olds, a brilliant girl, very well spoken and obviously at ease in front of video cameras. To round out the genders we also meet Levi a pretty typical boy who talks at the same intelligence level as Ted Haggard, who we also get to meet leering at the camera and calling us all sinners.

The kids get educated at the camp…no horsing around with flashlights after lights-out, cause Jesus might not approve. Just lots of wailing in tongues, a kind of made-up blachahm blah blah that sounds a lot like some eastern language than most of these fundamentalists would like to admit. You get to see pumped up kids smashing coffee mugs with a hammer (weird huh?). You get to see them going on a field trip to Washington to sing hymns in front of the White House, which incidentally  is fortified like a castle ostensibly to prevent terrorist acts, but more likely to prevent pissed off Americans from gaining unauthorized access. Did anyone hear the story of the kid from Iceland who was arrested because he managed to actually get a long distance telephone call through to the White House?   What are they so scared of? Could a child interfere with the thought processes of Bush?

And the Christian fundamentalists in all their hyperventilating and wailing---what are they scared of? Liberals apparently. Can anyone define liberal for me? Isn’t it a person who believes in social justice, a person who wants to achieve some progress in the world, easing the suffering of the poor and treat all people according to the ethic of care.

This weekend with all the traffic to see Batman…300 million bucks this last week at the box office, maybe a real trip to absurdity is a look at Jesus Camp.

 The terror of talk shows is really too much to bear.  They definitely seem to be a crazy self-serving machine, with the most “successful” creating all kinds of spin-offs.  While Dr. Phil may have a PhD in Psychology, and therefore the right to call himself Dr., would he be who he is without Oprah?  For that matter, would Suze Orman, Nate Berkus, and Rachel Ray be as wealthy as they are today if they didn’t spawn off of Ms. O?  Just like the sequel is to the movie industry, the spin-off is to the TV world. 

But, on to keeping my eyes open with toothpicks – the Dr. Phil show where the girl who supposedly “seduced” the guy who is accused by the girl’s father of “raping” his daughter because he held her down and got her pregnant, then her parents told her to give the baby up for adoption, which she did – and, therefore, violated the rights of the biological father.  What amazed me is how Dr. Phil never asked how old she was when they first had sex, or if he did hold her down, or if she felt forced at any time.  The whole focus was on the biological father’s rights. This whole thing is supported by the National Center for Men, which has filed a lawsuit for men on Roe v. Wade.  However, when I tried to find out who is in charge of the Center, Mel Feit’s name came up.  This led to me to far too many articles on the definition of rape and this comment from an article in Time: (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1584786,00.html)

“Mel Feit, executive director of the National Center for Men, a male-advocacy group based in Old Bethpage, N.Y., says biology is a factor. "At a certain point during arousal, we don't have complete control over our ability to stop," he says. "To equate that with brutal, violent rape weakens the whole concept of rape." His group has created a "consensual sex contract" to be signed before intercourse.”

Now all the dots come together and I understand why the whole issue of rape was never even an issue for Dr. Phil.   AAGGHHHH!   Like others who feel they have lost time watching these shows, I am thankful to take the toothpicks out of my bleeding eyes.

I watched Rachael Ray on Friday. The episode was on “Yum O!” event at Café una Notte with five teen chefs participating in a most memorable experience of their lifetime. The show was inspiring to watch as the teen chefs learn how to prepare food for a formal event, meet former President Clinton and singer Carly Simon. For an emotional finale to the event, each teen received a $10,000 scholarship. The five teen chefs are very motivated and talented, and they don’t seem to be kids from disadvantaged backgrounds that need a boost to have a better chance to be successful. The final segment of the episode, Rachael Ray made Ratatouille, just like how Remy made it in the Disney movie Ratatouille. The episode was almost an infomercial. She was promoting “Yum O!” which is her non-profit organization that aims to “empower kids and their families to develop healthy relationships with food and cooking.” She mentioned “Ratatouille” been an excellent movie to show to the kids to get them to eat vegetables, which I do not see how. At the bottom right corner of the TV screen, a little icon of how to order “Ratatouille” was displayed several times. She mentioned her websites, Rachael Ray Show and Rachael Ray, several times to look up for recipes, ideas etc. She also promoted her magazine and as well as her new recipe book. She was even recruiting audience to grow their own vegetables and videotape the process for next season’s Grow Your Own Challenge. There were too many promotions in her show! She’s like Oprah, has her own magazine and Club RR. Could it be her talk show is part of HARPO Production I wonder. I find Rachael Ray Show is very tamed and friendly. The show is NICE to watch because she never appears threatening, dominating or presents herself as an expert of anything. Ok, maybe on the subject of quick and easy cooking. She always start the show with antic dodo stories to share with the audience that gives a warm and fuzzy feeling, then follow by interviews with celebrity guests. She never asks tough questions, just harmless chatting around the kitchen table. She always ends her show with cooking segment, which is similar to her 30-minute Meal show on Foods Network. She appears humble, polite and cheerful - very likeable personality becasue she doesn't offend people. I just find she has way too much promotions going on during the show, but I supposed that’s why the show is on air and making money. 

Well, I managed to do it….. I sat through 3 episodes of Oprah on the Ellen Show ( March 25th, 2008) thereby killing two birds with one stone or is that two talk show hosts with one blog?! Since my home TV channels are tres limited I had to do my talk show viewing homework on YOU-tube. Such a format for viewing TV shows has its pluses such as no commercial interruptions (although I was curious as to what  kinds of advertising were carried along with the Ellen Degeneres show) and it was generally quick and dirty to watch so that I could get on with life away from the screen.  I digress…. The show began with Oprah coming out to a standing ovation by Ellen’s audience…hmmmmm I thought that the two shows were in conflict with one another in that they both were on at the same time of day. After Ellen goes on and on about how wonderful Oprah is (almost saying that she’s her all-time hero) Oprah makes the following statement – “ I feel like the mother of all talk shows!” …to which Ellen agrees and the Oprah comments to Ellen that she is doing a good job of being a female talk host and that she is very proud of the fact that Ellen is keeping the show “clean”! This patting on one’s back went back and forth way too long for my antsy interest. Meanwhile, while the two hosts are “hosting”one another, sidebars appear on the left of the screen with blurbs such as Stayed tuned for Oprah’s political picks, Ellen meets Oprah’s 5 dogs, & Oprah’s Leadership Academy. I had to stop and check to see if I was watching the Oprah show or the Ellen show….as all the “tease leads”were about Oprah! Hmmmmmm. Part two of the show began with a re-run of an old skit where Ellen is a patient and Oprah is the psychologist/psychiatrist and Ellen admits to the Dr. that she loves Susan. This little skit brings tons of laughter from all the Moms in the audience. Oprah expresses that after she did that skit she never had so much hate mail in her life and the conversation about the whole skit dies right there and there after Ellen says, “That’s too bad.” This could have been a great starting point for a great discussion but the conversation literally and figuratively goes to the dogs. For the remainder of the show we hear about Oprah’s five dogs and how she is the master of them and the dominant one in the pack…..no kidding. Just before one of the breaks there is a little 3 second “political” chat whereby Oprah openly endorses Obama even though she voices that she has never been interested in politics but that what Obama could do would be great for the country. She (Oprah) goes on to give Ellen advice by saying that being a talk show host one can open people’s hearts  and therefore have an influence on their lives…..YIKES! There’s a bit of a push for Oprah’s school in Africa and then we are subjected to mega-minutes of meeting two of her cocker spaniels   (avec matching  Oprah hair-styles) which she drags out of her big black SUV parked in the studio parking lot….don’t get me wrong, I love dogs but all this dog talk at the end of the show made me go and search out my cat Jessie and give her a big hug (even though she fought it …the hug that is). Is it no wonder that I’ve avoided talk shows all this time otherwise I’d be addicted to the puppies!  Onto Doc Phil….wish me luck.

One of the 'Hot Topics' on The View on Friday was can a person be in love with two different people. Dr. Helen Fisher says in her book (the title was never mentioned) that she believes a person can indeed be in love with two different people at the same time. I'm not sure if it's possible for a person to be in love with 2 different people at the same time. I think a person can lust for more than one person at the same time but being in love is a unique, deep experience that I feel can only be shared between 2 people. I think you can have love for 2 different people but an individual can't 'be in love' with 2 different people at the same time.

Another point that was discussed was the fact that a billboard exists in New York of an upcoming TV show on HBO entitled "Generation Kill". The billboard depicts what looks like a young American man dressed in a military uniform and beside his image are the words 'GENERATION KILL'. I think it is a little insensitive that a TV show and billboard portrays an image of war when the war in Iraq is still going on. Another billboard that was shown on The View was of a picture of a plane crashing through one of the Twin Towers with the message besides the picture reading "Please Don't Vote for a Democrat". Obviously this message has been put out there by the Republicans to say that if the Democrats come into power, America is going to be attacked once again by terrorists. I believe it is incredibly tasteless of the Republican party to put up a billboard showing such a graphic image, especially when so many millions of people were affected by this tragedy, not only in the US, but all over the world. It is a not so subtle scare tactic put forth by the Republicans to put fear into the hearts of Americans that if they don't vote for McCain that more lives will be lost and America will once again be attacked. The primary reason why these 2 billboards were discussed was that the panel felt that the billboards were tasteless, especially the Twin Towers one. I wonder if this was an indirect way of the panel discussing their political stance(s). I found it interesting that Elisabeth Hasselbeck seemed quite upset with both billboards considering she has made it quite clear that she is a Republican and a supporter of Bush. Could someone be changing sides???

Before this course, I had enjoyed watching certain talk shows like Oprah and Dr. Phil with an open-mind assuming that they had good intentions for educating the general public. Oprah must have good intentions- she's trying to get people reading! In my mind, I viewed ‘other’ talk shows like Jerry Springer as the ‘bad’ ones. After viewing Dr. Phil, Oprah and Ellen last week, I find myself questioning their intentions and now also thinking of them as ‘bad’ ones. Now that I have started reading Vulture Culture: The Politics and Pedagogy of Daytime Television Talk Shows, I am more aware and feel that these talk shows are nothing but mega-money making production scams. I had never realized that the majority of guests on these shows are usually women from the working-class and the hosts and panel of experts represent the middle-class and professional people as the social norm and ideal. I had not considered the fact that these marginalized guests were being taken advantaged of and further perpetuating negative stereotypes.

Another area that I had been unaware of was that of power. I was unaware that the television networks and Hollywood studios are as integrated as they are.  I was also not aware that it is only a handful of companies that own most television programs, channels, and other media and cultural products. I feel cheated. I tried to watch TV today, but found myself questioning and analyzing the content, the advertisements, and wondering who owns this and what messages are they trying to send me as I relax on my couch? Will TV ever be the same for me? I’ll try to watch TV again tonight and see what happens.

  While watching several  5 min episodes of "Jaywalking" on Jay Leno last week, I made the following observations: nearly everyone Jay approached was either a minority or a woman; with two exceptions, everyone was under the age of 35; and of course, everyone appeared or was made to appear foolish and down right stupid.The questions Jay asks are fairly routine and easy and usually relate to current events and politics: Who is the current VP? Who are the presidential candidates? etc. Anyone who has a pulse and watches some news is likely to get the answers to the questions, one would think. Yet, there are many, no doubt, who may not own a T.V., or keep abrest of current events. When watching these people struggle to answer seemingly simple questions, I am distrurbed by my own reaction which is one of laughter. This is the appeal of Jaywalking; it appeals to a base and twisted desire to see other people ridiculed and mocked. Anyone is made to feel intelligent when compared with the "moron" on Jaywalking. NBC and Leno seem to be exploiting this in the Jaywalking segment; it is the carnival at its best, and we are complicit in this fraud as willing spectators. All of the Jaywalking episodes " can be easily staged, spectacularized, mocked at or ridiculed” (Quail, Razzano & Skalli, 2005, p.78). What is most troubling, though, is the impression which Jaywalking reinforces that minorities and young women, in particular, are a bunch of uneducated and unrefined 'airheads.'

My children just returned from holidays. ( I came back early to go to school. All by my lonesome-- fudge for breakfast! Yeah!) I was trying to ask the kids (13,13, 15,17) what shows they like to watch or internet sites they go to. They were without internet for 2 weeks and only tv in the hotels in the pm. Car radio all day long. They do have i pods yet we force them to take them out once in a while. The husband cranks the radio so loud we have to listen to right wing talk show on the radio--just to know what they are thinking. ( We cleanse the palate every once in the while with NPR or Air America.) The kids just tune it out but they do say the right wingers do tend to yell a great deal. (Rush, we're talking about you.) Otherwise they have no clue.

I wondered what they remembered about the news they saw on the hotel tv or heard in the car. The only thing they really remember is Christian Bale getting arrested for assault. They had just seen Batman so it was on their radar. Well, not very intellectual but they hadn't had a vegetable in 2 weeks so I'll take what I can get. Not knowing where to go with this I did say I didn't really hear of Christian Bale untl  a few years ago when his father married Gloria Steinem.

"Who is Gloria Steinem?," they all chimed--even the one I'm sure I never dropped on her head.

UUGGHHHH!!

As I was flipping channels this afternoon, I came across a very interesting show called Conversations on KCTS 9, hosted by Enrique Cerna.  Phil Donahue, who once had a talk show between 1967 and 2003, was the guest.  On the show, Donahue explained that his “visually dull show” lasted for almost 26 years was because the show discussed issues people cared.  What I remember from Donahue Show was his trademark of jumping all over the audience to let the audience ask questions, and that was what made the show.  During that time, this was a radical idea called democracy – “that the people could use the airwaves that belongs to them in the first place” to give their voice, Donahue explained.  He gave an example of a show about a young woman who was protesting against the Vietnam War by fasting.  The audiences were angry with the young woman’s mother by asking questions such as “What if she dies…  What kind of mother are you?”  The mother then said, “Why aren’t you concern about the 200 young men that come home each week?”  Her question really got the audience aroused.  The Phil Donahue Show was cancelled in 2003, right before the Iraq War, because of his strong view against the war - “Donahue is a difficult public face for NBC in a time of war” because he did shows with titles such as “Iraq War is a massive blunder.”

Donahue explained that to the Washington Press Corp, election is like Super Bowl, great drama.  The people have lost their way from their principles.  There’s no true democracy since the two major parties in United States are virtually “owned” by corporations and so the independent candidacies have no chance due to lack of financial support.  One can’t hope to be elected for saying “I’m for strong diplomacy.”  The corporations are more concern about their stock price than what their president should be doing for the nation.  Another concern he has is that the congress is not executing its constitution responsibility thus giving the president complete power.  Donahue further stated that in politics, there is no glory for fixing economic, healthcare or global warming, except for going to war.  “Corporate mania/media is using public asset to sell things and turn the people into consumer targets.”    

Where is our voice in the media?

Do we have media democracy in Canada?    

This is another interview with Phil Donahue on Democracy.

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/24/phil_donahue_we_have_an_emergency

The cartoon I watched was “The Proud Family”. It’s about an African American family whose last name is Proud…There’s a mom, who knows some of the answers, a dad who’s a stubborn loser, a grandma who knows best, granny’s Latin American boyfriend, who doesn’t speak any English but understands all and takes advantage of everything and everyone, a teenage girl , who’s the main character, and her three best friends, another black girl with blond hair, a Latin American girl, who’s granny’s boyfriend’s granddaughter, and a red-haired girl who looks very Irish to me, and the baby twin siblings. Today’s episode was about being famous. The four girls are picked up to become a teenage singing group. The main character outstands in the group and as more attention is paid to her, the rest become jealous and she turns into an unbearable diva. Her mom leaves her husband to go and live at the mansion her teenage-famous-daughter has just got. Granny and her boyfriend become some kind of bodyguards of the newly born diva, and get their feet rubbed by an English buttler. The “Wizard”, who is the music producer and the big brain behind her success, buys new friends for her that do whatever she wants, but she misses her old friends. She would never acknowledge she was rude and mean to them. Her mom tries to talk her into calling her old friends but she refuses arguing that after all, she’s the famous-important one. She rides her limo around her old neighbourhood, where her dad has become practically a homeless, and sees her friends. She goes back to the “Wizard”, who’s black and faceless by the way, and quits her new life to recover her friends. She claims her earnings and he gives her $10 after deducing all the money he supposedly spent on her. When she complains the "Wizard" calls his bodyguard, who has an Arnold "Governator" Schwarzenegger accent, and asks him to show her the way out. She goes back to her friends but her friends don’t believe she’s left her luxurious life for them until they hear it from granny, who thinks her granddaughter has made a huge mistake leaving her success to gain her friends back. Here children finally know better than adults. Black mom does not care much about her daughter’s diva behaviour because after all that has given her the chance to live in a mansion. Black dad’s a helpless loser with such big pride that he would rather end up alone than follow his wife and kids. Black granny (wisdom for all I understood) just cares about herself. Latin Americans are opportunistic and lazy with a pimp look and a sexy voice – always in Spanish --, and friends will always be willing to forgive you if you are "truly" sorry, no matter what you did to them. Another conclusion would be that African Americans cannot be famous and rich without losing everything else and becoming a pain in the ass, and if they are rich and famous, like the Wizard, you can't trust them because all they want is to take advantage of you. What's the intended audience of this show???

Equipped with my media literate glasses and my dora the explorer pajamas, I readied myself in front of the TV for Saturday morning cartoons.  I started channel surfing and I stopped on the first animated image that came up.  The show was “The Replacements” put on by Disney.  Great, two birds with one stone.  The show’s main characters were white with red hair (isn’t this a recessive gene?).  Within their friendship circle there is Black and East Indian representation.  However, they are relegated to very few lines and are not central to the storyline.  In the cartoon, the mother wants her daughter to play classical violin.  The mother recruits an old and evil violin teacher that employs a scholar-academic intertwined with a social-efficiency model of instruction.  The daughter hates her teacher, but doesn’t want to disappoint her mother.  I believe the premise of the show is that the daughter can “replace” people to suit her needs.  She replaces the violin teacher with a young hip country violin teacher who she learns from willingly.  The show ends with the daughter playing a duet with her old instructor, but instead of playing classical music, she busts out new country licks.  The underlying message of standing up for yourself and doing what you like instead of what you are told to do by your parents is by and large a good one.  The message was conveyed by the daughter in a respectful manner as opposed to what I saw on the Hannah Montana show where the daughter undermined the authority of her father. 

As with most blogs that I read from the class, I was amazed by the commercials littered in the middle of the show.  There was representation from WalMart, CapriSun, ToonTown, ClubLibby Lu, Yogos Sour Treats, Rockstar Nintendo DS, and Sunny D.  Consumerism and sugar.  “Shop till you drop, or until you get your pancreatic overshoot from insulin overload.  But my favourite ad was by the Church of Latter-Day Saints.  I know.  It was a commercial about a proud girl that wanted to show her drawing that she did in school to her family members.  One by one they ignored or paid lip-service to her.  Dejected she sits out on the front porch beside her dog.  A background voice is heard saying “If your family doesn’t listen to you, at least your dog will.  The Church of Latter-Day Saints.”  I was so disturbed that the Disney channel was infusing religion into their commercials, that I didn’t read into the statement until now.  Are they implying that church is like a loyal companion that won’t let you down?  I’m just freakin out right now, thinking how much they brainwashed me when I was growing up watching Saturday morning cartoons.  Hmmm…I don’t shop at Wal-Mart, I don’t consume sugary saturated food or drinks, and I don’t own a video game console.  I think I escaped unscathed.  Although I do go to church once in a while…damn they got me. 

After reading the Lizzie Maquire article in the Media Literacy text, I was curious about the program.  I have mostly taught grade four over the last fifteen years but have managed to avoid this one.  My neighbour across the street has three girls under eight who watch this show.  In conversation with her, she seemed to think this was a wholesome show compared to a lot of the skank that is on tv for young girls to watch.  I watched for some of the things that the author mentions in the text.  In this episode Lizzie, Gordo and Miranda try to get permission to go to a Restricted movie but after their parents deny them permission, they lie about where they are going and sneak into the movie. (So much for wholesome.)  When Lizzie saves someone at the theatre by giving them the heimlich (sp?) maneuver, I think the young audience is supposed to feel outraged for her when she gets into trouble for lying and sneaking around because she is a hero, after all.  The character that suggests they go to the R rated movie and sneak in after they have been told they can't go is Gordo. Both Gordo and Miranda convince innocent Lizzie to deceive her parents (white middle-class girl can’t think for herself and is corrupted by Latino girl and male influence). The mom in this episode epitomizes the “perfect Disney mom”. When Matt asks her to make a booth for his school fair, she says she can’t do it (because she is comitted to too many perfect mom activities) until she realizes that someone else’s mom is doing it. We see “into her mind” when she imagines the friend’s mom in a 1950’s dress standing with her award winning cookies. Suddenly, she is compelled to engage in the perfect mom competition. I can see how young girls are attracted to this show. It has the love interests, humour, fashion, and fantasy “good” life that kids have been groomed to watch. Perhaps that is where the difficulty lies. At the same time hegemonic values are espoused, there is a real desire by young girls to want this fantasy life.

I found our “talk show” debriefing today to be very informative even though I thought I had overdosed on the topic of talk shows. The various personal experiences that people shared in class regarding this topic were helpful in comprehending the “world” of Oprah, Ellen, Tyra, Doc Phil and the likes. Dorothy’s story about a colleague lining up for hours, proceeding through lines of security, being coached in the studio as an audience on the “correct” way to appear shocked, sad, delighted and so on was very telling of the whole manipulation scene going on out there before the lights, camera and action of the talk show takes place. I found it very odd when after sitting in the studio for what I’m sure was hours, Dorothy’s friend (different from Friend of Dorothy’s!) still didn’t know what the Oprah topic was going to be about nor who the special guest might be …meanwhile when the camera eventually starts rolling the show happens to be about dogs! I wonder whom the “expert” was that Oprah referred to and if every audience member left the show with a free rawhide bone or dog dish? Now that I think about it,  I did get a set of stainless steel dog dishes when I was an audience member on the Vicki Gabereau show when it was taped at CTV here in Vancouver years ago. My mind is blank (must be due to my “mature” age) as to how we as an audience were coached and prepped for the Gabereau show… I do remember a young (teenish looking) male floor director coming off from the sides during every commercial break and he would get us clapping and smiling…. not quite the “American” talk show experience I must admit as I can’t even remember who the special guests on the show were and if there was a theme or topic that was any bit controversial…. so Canadian… so tame… so polite. If this course wasn’t as short as it is, it would be cool to create our own talk show since we all seem to know the formula for creating one: start with one host/expert, add a person/people problem, consult some good looking male or “mature” female in a power suit preferably with a string of pearls et voila, you have a 565A talk show. All fun aside, as Shirley states in her article in ML chapter 26, page 313… “…dangerous themes which are potent enough  to infuse the minds of both children and adult viewers. We offer little or no way to read these themes, to learn how to safely and intelligently view media. Many believe that if it is on TV or placed on film by a legitimate source, the text is accurate and correct.” We indeed have a big job ahead of us as educators. Bonne chance mes amis!

Did anyone see Tyra today? I know that some people had been saying that it was so bad because it is always about fat/thin issues. But as I was flipping this afternoon I just saw a few minutes at the end. I guess it was about power politics of skin colour in the black community. A lighter skinned black women was complaining that she was always treated poorly by other people --dark skinned brown people. This issue has been touched upon before but there was a little piece of dialogue between Tyra and the guest. that I thought was very interesting. (The guest, of course, was getting jeered by dark and lighter people in the audience.)

I am paraphrasing here but I think this is pretty close;

Tyra: Do you know where this prejudice comes from?

Guest: Yes, from all the dark skinned women..

Tyra: No. I mean in history. Slave owners used to favour those who were lighter. It was a way to divide our community, to limit our power.

Then it was the end of the show but that was the meatiest interchange I've seen so far.... I'll have to watch the entire thing tomorrow.

In the Health and Career Unit I teach for grades 6/7 there is section in one of the text books on counting the kilocalories you eat during the day, and how much is healthy depending on your age, height...we covered this section, but I didn't ask them to count their calories, nor did I put much emphasis on it.  I was more concerned with healthy eating, and feeling good about who you are...As a result, the primary focus of the unit was self-asteem....at least this is what I wanted the focus to be! My students (girls in particular) read the section I skimmed over and did their own little research and soon, quite  a few of them were counting their daily calories and talking about being fat...it became obsessive behaviour.  I created a lesson for my class in order to address the issue.  I thought there was some progress made and the students (particularly the girls) seemed to understand where this obsessive behaviour originates from and they asked many questions that created a great discussion.  Even though they became media literate to a certain extent, body image is so important for not just the girls in my class, but even for adult females.  There is an awareness of the negative implications of body image portrayed in the media, but we continue to let these images control our perceptions of females.

       I think this course has made a very strong argument for why it is necessary to teach critical media literacy to our students. The notion of  the 'spectacle' as articulated in Vulture Culture is a very powerful one. Anyone who is unaware of the spectacle, I would argue, is part of the spectacle: the guests on the shows, the studio audience, and the home viewers. Even as viewers at home, our reactions have been carefully scripted by the writers and producers of the talkshows.  The reaction of the 'passive' viewer can be easily predicted: he/she will laugh as the guests on the show are ridiculed.; this reaction is almost instinctive. What is most troubling is that as one becomes a more sophisticated and critical consumer of the media, one is confronted with  questions  that few would want to tackle: What is my role in the spectacle? How am I complicit in this spectacle? How have I allowed myself to dehumanize the guests on these shows? Understandbly, most of us would rather not answer these questions. I think it is problematic to simply blame the show (although it is certainly deserving of its share) for creating the 'spectacle,' since for the 'spectacle' to succeed there must participants. We, the home viewers, are the particpants. By passively consuming these shows which ridicule and mock the most marginalized of our society, we allow these stereotypes to go unchallenged and are as guilty as the producers and writers of these shows in perpetuating these negative images. By teaching critical media  literacy to students, we can empower them to remove themselves from the 'spectacle' in order to see the guests on the show as real people dealing with serious problems (teen pregnancy, sexual identity issues, body image issues etc.); so that the next time they stroll along Gastown or take a bus down East Hastings, they don't automatically dismiss the marginalized people they see as the same dysfunctional 'other' they encountered on the Jerry Springer show.