The Truth behind “The Perfect Thing”: Unraveling the Myth of the I-pod

The Ipod is heralded as the most influential invention of the 21st century. It revolutionized the world of music, allows us to create a personal bubble in notoriously crowded areas, and made ordinarily banal experiences fun. However behind the illusion of good the I-pod has created, there is an underlying sinister secret regarding the product actual production and disposal. I-pod, the company that touts images of Ghandi, Martin Luther King, and Einstein that its heroes, produces its beloved products with exploited labor. It’s interesting to consider the effects, if such as secret is revealed to the public at large, on the company’s sales. Would the public become so disenchanted with the company that they angrily toss their Ipods away and vow never to purchase another Itunes song again? I seriously doubt it. Consider Wal-mart. Wal-Mart is infamous for bullying its suppliers and well as using cheap foreign labor. Its practices are well known to the public, but does that stop people from seeking out their unbeatable priced merchandise? The answer is obvious. The same is arguable true for Apple: Its brand name is so strong and its products are so desirable that even enlightening the public to its “sins” barely causes the buyers to blink, or even consider not using Apple’s products and services. The question then becomes, What incentive does Apple have to even invest in greener practices or treat its employees better when the bottom line rewards their current behavior? The answer remains unknown.

"Auteur Theory"

Recently, my group presented on the history of the film industry. I’ve decided to use this blog as a means of investigating the relationship between the film world and the reality. One of the aspects of film that we really didn’t have a lot of time to discuss was the notion of the “auteur theory”. One of my group members hinted on this idea and noted it as the shift between the director being merely a project manager to the director being the given creative and social credit for the success of a film. This notion has French origins and began in the 1940s. The theory “asks us to take the cinema seriously, to put it on the same footing with literature and painting, to stop thinking of it as a circus, a burlesque show, or a way to keep children off the streets at night. The clearest contribution of the auteur critics has been to improve the pedigree of motion-picture art.” (Scott, p. 4)1
In other words, this notion gives directors the power to include personal, regional, and national biases in “their” work. Through the people that are cast, the way the setting is depicted, the amount of time that is given to particular scenes, denoting their relative importance, the director offers his individual perspective of the world as the dominant perspective. Imagine what happens when the directors share similar backgrounds, beliefs, and schemas (mental frameworks or patterns). When this occurs, the individual portrayals of these directors and their individual perspectives merge together to create a synchronized biased reality wherein these collective views are taken as truth.

Election Sensation

The major connections I’ve found between Bourdieu’s “On Television” and the current election are television’s creation of sensationalism, its creation of the focus on race and gender, and then its denunciation of the very notions it has implanted into the minds of the public—to appear innocent and unbiased, and of course, its role in the creation of a “public figure” (p. 46).
This election has been sensationalized by reporters inundating the public with play-by-plays. They tell us—where the candidates are now, whose in the lead, what strategies are being used by the successful and less successful candidate, projections for the future, and find members of the public that are willing to offer their opinions on what’s happening. The speed, the “torrent” as Gitlin would say, of the material creates a sense of excitement. Catch-phrases, like the “most historical election in history” add to the anxiety as people bustle about trying desperately to document, record, and capture this moment in history, so as to tell their grandchildren exactly what they were doing and how they felt when the 2008 Presidential Election occurred.
Another relevant connection between the text and today’s election, is the way the media—television, in particular, “help create the event by focusing on a story…and then denounce everyone who adds fuel to the fire that they lit themselves” (p. 64). In this year’s election, there are countless examples of such occurrences. The most memorable, in my opinion, and most recent, was the emergence of all the talk about the “Bradley effect”. Suddenly, everywhere I looked, people were considering how racism may play into this year’s election and actually skew the projections for the election. I have no doubt that some obscure journalist found this information and saw it had the possibility of creating a new angle to the “Election Story” and ran with the concept. As I listened to NPR today, the same people that were worried about the Bradley effect are changing their position. They are now content that the Bradley effect shouldn’t be a factor and even challenge the fact that the Bradley effect had a role in the Bradley’s loss. They now cite incorrect internal polls as the cause of the misconception, not racism.
Finally, this election represents the ultimate creation of the “public figure” (p. 46). Obama t-shirts, buttons, paper dolls, etc. are all in existence because the media made him into a celebrity. Once they realized that Obama may actually have a chance---interestingly, enough---they ran with him and promoted his popularity. Today, on NPR—I’m a rather avid listener---they traveled to West Kenya, where apparently Obama memorabilia is being sold in the marketplace. They also reported that a life-sized cut-out of Obama is in his Kenyan grandmother’s house. They predicted that regardless of the results of the election, this cut-out will probably be displayed somewhere within the community—as a testament of Obama’s position as a hero and role model .

Sex in Sorenson??

I knew not what to expect as I wandered to the third row of seats in Sorenson’s auditorium. I honestly hadn’t done any research on the speaker and was only there because I was promised five extra credit points for writing this blog. However, I must say, I was open-minded and highly-curious about what this self-proclaimed left-political feminist had in store for the audience. Katha Pollitt began her talk in a rather traditional way. She introduced herself and she told us that she had written for The New York Times and The Nation. Quite impressive. It seemed like the typical presentation.
Pollitt, then, picked up her book, entitled “Learning to Drive” and without the slightest shift in tone or expression, told us the title of her selected reading: “Memoir of a Shy Pornographer”. I could hear the hushed murmurs around me as people assumed that they had misheard or misinterpreted Pollitt’s words. No…she said it, she was to read from “Memoir of a Shy Pornographer”. She said she selected the reading because it was probably one of the few stories that we would not have previously read. Then, she began. The story was actually about her previous job as a pornography editor. Within the reading, she gave a few examples of the writing she would have to edit and touched on the epic dilemma between choosing words that were grammatically correct, but that would also put people in the mood. I must admit, I thoroughly enjoyed watching my classmates shift in their seats as the mention of the word “fellatio.”
What I found most interesting was her discussion on the difference between porn films and books. Reading, in her opinion, “took more work”. It also gave the reader a higher sense of “freedom and power” than one would have when watching a video. The video imposes images into our mind’s eye—dictating that this is THE WAY to do it, or that is how it SHOULD look. Books, in contrast, allow one to utilize his or her “imagination”. Needless to say, I found this talk, very interesting.

Non-Information: A response to McKibben's "The Age of Missing Information"

The role of television in society is one of the least contested positions of power today. Sure, people fuss and fight all of the time about how television contributes to over-consumptive, overly-violent, and over-sexualized nature of society, but this is merely an objection to specific notions, not to the television itself. Rather than focusing in the more demonized programs on television and supporting or dispelling the connection between the above-mentioned problems and their promotion on television, McKibben literally looks at television—itself—in the most general way. What he found was a huge influx of trivial matter parading itself as information.
One of the more interesting examples in the book concerned the images portrayed in nature programs. Channels like the Discovery Channel or Public Broadcasting station, which often include nature documentaries, are considered some of the most “educational” on television. Yet, what information do they actually teach. According to McKibben, the information given to us about animal life is not really actual information. All of images we see depict situations that only rarely occur in the animal world. After watching a lion for a couple of weeks or months and then editing out all of the normal, tedious things the creature does, the videographer may be capture only a couple of scenes in which the animal is aggressive, threatening, and…active. These scenes are what is displayed on the nature programs and what are used to define the animal. The lion is presented as threatening, “the king” of the jungle that dominates the animal kingdom. The show fails to disclose that the events that are depicted only happen once in a “blue moon”.
Believe it or not, these channels, too, are concerned more with holding the audience’s attention than with the distribution of accurate information. Thus, after watching a nature documentary, one only has the illusion of attaining knowledge and learning something new and concrete. In reality, he/she has learned nothing at all, but how the animal may act in the extreme instances.

Power Play: Investigating McChesney's Argument

This topic is one of particular importance to me. McChesney’s argument about the concentration of power of media owners and its resulting bias in the media channels can be seen and understood in a micro environmental way for me. As one of the more “involved” members of the Free Press, I have a similar relationship to the presentation of media on Babson’s campus—at least in most theoretical sense. I have recently accepted a role largely aimed at recruitment of writers and other staff members. My strategy was simple. I decided to begin by recruiting people within my social network. This choice reflected my assumption that these people would be more likely to agree to offer their help. As a person of color on Babson’s campus, I have the greatest affinity and more often than not, the closest relationships with those who also constitute a minority on Babson’s campus. This meant that the people I recruited did not normally represent the “white male”, which composes the majority of Babson’s student population, but were women or ethnic minorities, or, more often than not, were a combination of the two. This inclination was not intentional, however, it definitely, even for a short while, shifted the type of news that was covered.
In example, I remember seeking out a couple of my friends that belong to Black Greek-letter organizations during the Greek rush season on-campus. I felt it important for people to be exposed to different organizations that essentially serve the same purpose, but may not be considered as viable organizations to mainstream society. This article, entitled “The Divine Nine”, was featured on the front page of an issue of the Babson Free Press. I am not deranged enough to believe that this article would appeal to the masses of the Babson community. I am also aware that the fact that the Babson Free Press is only read by very few members of the community probably played a huge role in both my pursuit of the project and my ability to give the article such a large role in the issue. However, this little exercise proved that the bias of those in “power”—though in my case, this power derived from access, not resources, can be easily and perhaps unquestionably passed downward.
Given my personal experience with how simple it is for one who has the access and resources to manipulate the media, I am very supportive of McChesney’s argument. The concentration of power in the mass media can’t help but project the biases of the owners down the chain to the consumer.

Cut and Paste Reality

I am grateful for the ability to suddenly see that media utilizes the ability to focus in on and, inversely, tune out certain aspects, perspectives, or facts when depicting a story. The ability to pick and choose what to tell people and what to not disclose is a conscious one that definitely has a huge role in the audience’s conclusions and, indirectly affects their reactions to the “information” that they are receiving. This power is all the more daunting when one realizes the utter lack of diversity amongst those that control the media. The ability to alter the truth, by playing up and downplaying facts at one’s whim paired with the extremely narrow views of essentially determining “what’s news” makes the inundation of media all the more terrifying. We are receiving biased “information”, and in addition, we receive so much of it that these flawed views are distributed throughout our society as infallible due to their sheer magnitude. This gives media the power to completely alter our perception of society. McChessney equates the consolidation of media ownership to the loss of democracy. Though this connection initially seems far-fetched, when media is as concentrated as it is now, the few media empires that own virtually all the channels through which we receive information are able to dictate what is important, what we should care about---what matters. Thus, they have a perceptible influence on our point-of-view, which in turn, affects our stances and positions on issues. By selecting which content we receive and that which is thrown on the cutting room floor, these media chiefdoms are able to nudge people into support of some stances or gently push the general populace into opposition of another policy or viewpoint. The distortion in facts and highly narrow perspectives---that ignored the great diversity of our nation---coupled with the saturation of information from these highly concentrated media empires give media all-access passes to the warping of everyday reality for the American populace.

The question then becomes why the people controlling media choose to highlight certain stories and diminish others. What exactly is their criterion for distinguishing between a top story and a flop? We learned in class that the main function of media today is profit-generation. From my previous business courses, I recognize that any company whose main goal or vision is maximizing profit is in trouble. Yes, the underlying motive for any company is making a profit. However, for that concept to be the overarching principle is disturbing to say the least. A company operating purely for profit seeks to cut as many corners as possible and to charge as much as the market will allow. A company whose primary focus is increasing its bottom line seeks the highest volume sales possible. It does not seek the highest quality product or service. It seeks to meet the bare minimum standards---nothing more, nothing less. The other problem with a purely profit-driven company, or in this case a profit-driven industry, is that the business tries to reach as many people as possible. I recently learned in my Strategic Management Course, that this is a recipe for disaster. Companies must choose a distinct target market that they wish to serve and through marketing its product directly to this market, hopefully gain their patronage. The mass media’s strategies of basically targeting everyone results in their ineffective service of most. They can’t possibly cater to all of the different tastes and preferences of the consumers. This brings me back to the initial question of how the top stories are selected. The mass media attempts to guess what the majority populace would like to hear or see. Once they decide what’s important, they market the heck out of the stories. Commercials hype them up. Snippets of information tease the audience in waiting a couple more minutes to hear this “developing story”. In other words, through the consistent message of urgency and importance, the media conveys the importance of the event, story, or whatever. It’s basically the same as the chicken and egg theory and the question of which comes first. The chicken creates the egg; however, the chicken was once an egg itself. In this case, I believe that media decides what’s important and merely tests the waters a little to ensure that people will bite.

Media Mania Part I

Last semester as I browsed through the long list of available liberal arts courses, the course name “Media Studies” immediately caught my interest. In just a couple of class sessions, I’ve already begun to be more aware of the huge influx of media constantly surrounding me. Thus, it becomes pertinent to one’s success in any industry, business in particular, that one is able to effectively manipulate according to one’s personal interests. The question then becomes, what exactly are media? In Media Studies, the first day of class we defined media as the plural of medium, which is defined as any technology used to communicate thoughts. Unfortunately, when thoughts or ideas are mediated into our homes, classrooms, and general society, the biases and personal perspectives of the source are also absorbed. This makes nearly every piece of “information” received from media, essentially distorted and flawed in that it contains the distinct opinion and perspective of another.
One need not question why media are such big players in today’s society. Every piece of knowledge we hold as true is provided via the mass media. In school, we learn from books, a medium that conveys information through written material. At home, we learn of current events through the news, which is an unbeatable combination of text, sound, and images, or read the newspaper, which through images and text, convey information about our neighborhood, region, country, and world. If one truly begins to evaluate the extent of power and presence media holds in our society, our utter dependence upon it to function, to think, and, essentially, to survive is revealed. Thus, Gitlin’s media “torrent” begins to be fully realized.
I must admit, I initially found Gitlin’s theory on the inundation of media as an elaborate exaggeration. For me, his accounts in the introduction of “Media Unlimited” portrayed a world more similar to Aldous Huxley’s fictional “Brave New World” than the world in which I reside. In my opinion, his concept on the omnipresence of media and the notion that we seem completely unaware of the true extent of its presence, and inadvertently, its influence in society, portrays humans as mindless beings merely living under the illusion of free thought and free choice. Though it was later clarified in class that Gitlin is not proposing any brainwashing or menacing scheme behind the presence of media, I still initially felt that Gitlin gave media way too much leverage to mass media’s role in today’s society. It wasn’t until I was preparing to write this blog on how Gitlin’s theory on the “media torrent” was bogus, and how though there is a strong presence of media, it is not nearly as powerful as he proposed, I realized that…he was right. For as I sat down and prepared to write the paper, I couldn’t even begin to write my thoughts down without plugging in the ear buds of my Ipod. Then, I thought back to how I completely dropped whatever I was doing to watch the Season Premiere of Top Model a couple of weeks ago. Perhaps the reason I initially rejected Gitlin’s preface is because doing so meant turning the microscope onto my own life and recognizing all of the ways I, myself, am influenced by media. I was (and yet am) definitely uncomfortable with the sudden awareness of the huge influence of media in my everyday life. Though I doubt this awareness will make me change my habits, it will certainly make me more a more conscious-consumer of the mass media. I am suddenly extremely sensitive to its presence. It’s like awakening from a mind-numbing stupor, or, to use an example more pertinent to the class, like Neo when he took the little pill that allowed him to see through the illusions of reality and finally view his world as it really was. Thanks to my mere two weeks in Media Services, I’m developing the ability to see through all the fluff.