At Last!!!

So, it's been awhile since I have made any updates regarding my research.  And if you've been holding your breath, waiting for me, you're going to have to wait just one more day.  I have finally finished the paper. It's only due (checking my watch) at 5:30 tonight. After class is over and I have presented my findings and gotten feed back, I will post again. I will not be posting the entire paper.  Sorry to disappoint.  But, I will post some of the more interesting findings. Oh, there's some good stuff. 

My biggest regret is that, in this case, there wasn't enough time or space (paper is limited to ten pages/mine is 21 including the appendix with the four ads and a two page bibliography) to really investigate my theory.  But rest assured, I will be continuing this research throughout the summer and introducing this theory in my graduate thesis.  There's so much more information that when analyzed leads me to believe I'm onto something.  I just hope that I can prove it all.

Random Thoughts

So, I've found two new print ads.  And while they are not as striking as the first, they still make their mark.  I also found an article about the Marlboro Marine in the April 3, 2008 issue of Rolling Stone. And while the article has little to do with my quantitative research, it does have to do with this nation, the war and how little people in general know about the lasting effect war has on the human body, mind and soul.  

Reading the article about Lance Corporal James Blake Miller is emotionally exhaustive.  Reading about the unimaginable events he was witness to, the events that lead him home and the life he has forged out of necessity for survival is mind-boggling.  

Imagine being so overwhelmed by rage that you blackout, not knowing where you are when you come to or the events that lead up to it.  Imagine suffering from such profound Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome that you fall deeper into a pit of despair to find you've awoken to live another day.  Imagine knowing you need help, accepting it, in the form of psychotropic prescription drugs and finding that the medications made everything worse, especially the nightmares.  Imagine a government so warped with bureaucratic bullshit that you can't fight your way into a therapist unless your geographically desirable.  (Small town life makes it difficult for many Veterans to receive the aid they need on a consistent basis)  

It all makes you wonder.  How did America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, come to be a land that has forgotten many of it's heros?  How did we come to forget the countless men and women who have sacrificed their lives, literally and figuratively, for the freedoms we hold so dear?  Why do Americans fight so hard and so willingly for a country that does not fight for them as Veterans?

Do you remember the days (or remember seeing the footage) of when soldiers, home from war would be treated like royalty?  Parades, fanfare, streets blocked off for miles, thousands of people straining to see their loved ones as they returned home?  Where did that go?  Where did America go?  

Has it disappeared because the wars we have recently fought have not been so honorable or clear as to the right and wrong of it all?   Have we become so numb to the media images played for hours on end by 24 hour news outlets that we have forgotten that there are REAL people in those images?  Has "reality tv" replaced real tv in our heads?  Do we no longer see the images broadcast?  Are we not hearing or reading the stories being told?  Is no one listening?  Is there anybody out there who gets it?

When American soldiers, OUR soldiers, come home, regardless of your position on a war, they should be honored and treated with the utmost respect.  That includes being sure that they are provided with the BEST treatment possible for any and all ailments they may have.  Including, and especially, PTSD.  

I remember the government trying to cover up PTSD storied during Desert Storm.  It was nothing, a figment of their imaginations.  It couldn't be seen or physically documented, so, it wasn't real.  Tell that to the thousands of men and women living with it today.  I dare you...

This country and its Veterans need help.  Lots and lots of help.  And the government has disappeared behind its large fences, digging its way deeper and deeper away from its people.  Blinding itself from the needs of its people and the needs of the many who are brave enough and strong enough to defend the rights they hold so close to their hearts.  

So, what does it take?  What does it take for the government to be held accountable for its actions, or in this case inactions?  Who will stand up and be not afraid to point towards the government and say "You, sir/madame, should be ashamed of yourself for allowing this to happen to your people.  You're fired!"

Just as a side note, an election is just around the corner.  Every vote counts.

IF YOU DON'T VOTE, YOU CAN'T COMPLAIN!!!  

Am I Missing Something?

So, I have begun the literature review portion of my research paper.  I have narrowed my topic down quite a bit, just for this class.  I will study the use of fear and stereotypes by the US military in their TV and print ads since 9/11.  What I have found is perplexing.  There is a ton of material on the military, fear and stereotypes.  However, there is very little that I can find that correlates these ideas together.  

My little literature review looks like this:

There is not a lot of information to be found regarding the United States using stereotypes to induce fear as a means to control the population.  There are several books and articles on the military.  There are several books and articles on fear.  There are several books and articles on stereotypes.  But there are no reports that I can find, linking these ideas together.

 Some of the books include: The Psychology of Terrorism edited by Bruce Michael Bongar, which teaches how and why terrorism is so effective from a psychological stance; The Arab Americans: A History by Gregory Orfalea, which chronicles Arab Americans and Americas fears after 9/11; Collateral Damage: the Psychological Consequences of America’s War on Terrorism edited by Paul R. Kimmel and Chris E. Stout, which discusses among many topics the psychological effects of a viral media’s influence during times of war. 

Multiple literary articles attempt to define or categorize Arab stereotypes.  There are articles that discuss military advertising.  But there are no articles that tie the use of fear tactics within military advertising with keeping the American people subservient to the government. 

But then I stumbled onto a website called United for Peace & Justice (UFPJ) (www.unitedforpeace.org) “United for Peace and Justice is a coalition of more than 1400 local and national groups throughout the United States who have joined together to protest the immoral and disastrous Iraq War and oppose our government's policy of permanent warfare and empire-building.” (www.unitedforpeace.org) On their website is a link to a thought process called “racialization” and it’s ties to military advertising.  “Racialization” is defined as “…1. to impose a racial interpretation on; place in a racial context. 2. to perceive, view, or experience in a racial context. 3. to categorize or differentiate on the basis of race.” (www.dictionary.com) In other words, “racialization” is the process of constructing and imposing racial stereotypes.

UFPJ contends that the United States military uses this tactic in its advertising to different races.  The military advertisers stereotype different races, and then use those stereotypes to instill different reasons as to why one should enlist.  When studying different television ads (that can be found at www.youtube.com), as well as the two current print ads I have found, it is clear that the US military is using racialization to gain enlisters. 

In order to make the connection between the US military, advertising and fear, the use of studying the production elements, stereotyping and worldview will have to be examined.  It is my goal to show that fear is a powerful and effective marketing tool that has been used by the US government to coerce Americans into a perpetual state of fear.  I will only focus on print and television ads from post-9/11 times.

I feel that this is important work.  There is very little research that has been published regarding this link.  And it asks the question “Why?”  What is it about the US government that causes people to shrink in fear rather than question political ideas?  Why has there not been a study that focuses on the links between the military, advertising and fear-mongering?

Yes, not quite what I had hoped.  In fact, I am rather dismayed at the lack of information I could find.  I am perplexed that so few sources have made themselves clear to me.  Yes, I can define a lot of things: fear, stereotypes, advertising, the military.  I can prove through the use of production elements certain thought processes.  But can I find a link?  Can I find that one little piece of "Ah-ha!" information that links these ideas together?  Or am I thinking to far into a conspiracy theory that will make me sound and/or go insane?

I realized when I decided to do this that I was climbing an uphill battle, in hip-deep snow, without shoes or a coat during a blizzard in Alaska, in January.  I realized that I couldn't just knock on the doors of military advertisers and ask "Hey, do you use stereotyping and fear as a tool to keep Americans in a perpetual state of compliance?"  I certainly couldn't ask our illustrious Commander in Chief if he agreed.  He has enough trouble forming simple sentences, much less answering complex thought processes.  And it's not like any of them would say, "Why, yes.  Yes we do.  Why don't you come inside?  We'll have tea and discuss the entire thought process behind military advertising strategy."  Yeah, that's going to happen. 

Am I looking in the wrong places?  Isn't there some brilliant scholarly mind that has already answered this question?  Have I forgotten a key phrase that when Googled will give me the answers I am looking for?  Should I be looking for answers somewhere other than the library?  Am I a complete idiot for taking on this thought process?  Has Homeland Security tagged me yet?  Will I be able to get on a plane in June for the NMRC or am I going to have to take a ten hour road trip?  Not that I mind road trips, but with gas prices, it's actually cheaper to fly to Minneapolis.  

So, where do I go from here?  That's a really good question.  My thought processes are turing toward analyzing the production elements & stereotypical content of the current TV and print ads.  I still only have the two print ads.  But they are pretty powerful ads.  And the TV ads I have found on You Tube are, well, interesting.  

I do want to thank those of you who have been extremely helpful in this process.  Your support is essential and much needed.  THANK YOU!

 

Uncle Sam Wants You... To Be Afraid

So, I am beginning to work on my graduate thesis.  I am getting my M.A. in Media Literacy.  I thought I was going to do some really heavy, thought provoking piece on feminine stereotypes in film.  And then I saw a couple of ads in a magazine.  What follows is the beginning of a whole new topic and a whole new direction for me.  For the next several months, I will update my blog regarding the topic below.  I will share what I have and have not found, any thoughts I may have on this new topic, and how it's coming along. 

Currently, I am taking Media Research and our goal is to produce a 10 page (or so) paper regarding a topic within media that has a purpose.  We are to pose a new question, a new way of thinking about a topic and try to answer it.  The question(s) I have posed below are on a much larger scale than this smaller paper (and some are opinion), but I am going to use a small faction to begin my research and continue on with this topic during my final class.  

So, what you see below is the basis for my thesis.  It is by no means a finished product.  This week, my goal is to make this statement clearer and more concise and also begin my literature study.  We'll see how that goes...

The United States is currently at war. Actually, we are at war with several different factions.  We have the War in Iraq, the lesser known War in Afghanistan, both of which brought about the War Against Terrorism, the War Against Drugs, the War Against Poverty and the War Against Illiteracy, better known as No Child Left Behind, which, ironically, seems to have been left behind. Everything we fear, we wage “war” against. Where does this fear come from? Is it fear of the unknown? Is it a psychological response to man’s inherent nature to “fight or flight”? Or is it created by and then perpetuated by the government under the guise of “freedom” and “protecting our way of life”?

       There are two recent ads (within the last month) in Time magazine. The first ad depicts a crowded airport/train station/bus depot scenario. In it are several sepia colored people of presumably Middle Eastern decent.  And a caption that reads, “How do you fight an enemy who hides behind the innocent?” The second ad is a picture of an Altus II robot plane, complete with missiles, flying over a presumably Middle Eastern town with a caption that reads “Never let them out of your site.” Both of these images are startling when you take a look at the production values of the ads. By the way, the ads are paid for by the United States Air Force.

       The ads beg the question/hypothesis: “Is The United States government/military perpetuating the fear of terrorism in order to justify why America is still involved fighting a war that seems to have no end in sight?” It also makes one wonder are there other ads, print, television, radio or video that also fall along this line of using fear as a marketing tool? Are there statements that have been made by government officials that fall under this category? Are the ads working? Are there counter ads? Why is fear such an effective tool? Has fear been used by the government in the past?

       By researching military ads made during the last seven years (since the 9/11 attacks), as well as various government statements from such people as President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress and military officials, I believe an answer can be found. Exposing the truths behind statements and ads will help to open the eyes of those who refuse or cannot see the truth for what it is. There will possibly be a link between fear and the government through advertising. If the government can keep Americans afraid of terrorism, if they can keep perpetuating the fear of the unknown, they can keep us under control. The government can continue to have Americans who will fight without asking questions, an America that will continue to throw away billions of dollars in a war that cannot be “won” and a loss of countless lives all in the name of “freedom”.

To this date, over 4,000 American men and women have lost their lives fighting this war. This does not take into account the number of Americans who have been injured. It also does not take into account the number of Iraqi citizens who have been injured or killed within the last five years. How many lives does it take? What will it take for the American people to understand they are being deceived by the government of the United States?

This project is highly relevant in a time in which America is struggling to right itself in the now global/human market. America’s past is built upon it’s citizens who have struggled and protested against regimes and old doctrines time and time again. From tyranny, to slavery, to women’s rights to segregation, we have struggled to gain acceptance within the eyes of our own government as human beings. Do we continue to allow our current administration to treat us as sheep, corralled for “freedom”, or do we stand and fight for our own freedom and the true freedom of others.

Tune in Tomorrow...

The FCC has decided that Broadcasters should listen to the opinions of the people who live within their broadcast range.  (http://www.benton.org/node/9258) Check out the article on The Benton Foundation's website The FCC is going to try a novel approach... They are actually going to ask PEOPLE what they want to see in their area.  

What's really important about this article is that the PEOPLE need to get involved.  If the public continues to stick it's collective head in the sand, corporations will continue to lobby Congress & the FCC to further their greed and control issues.

Game, Set, Match...

Net Neutrality. You either love it, or you hate it. Okay, let me rephrase that, you're either a phone or cable company who loves it, or a paying customer who hates it. Then there are those who just don't get it. His name is Andy Kessler. John Dvorak kindly points his name out in his pcmag.com article this week (http://www.freepress.net/news/30984). Dvorak listed Kessler's blog (http://www.andykessler.com/andy_kessler/2008/02/wsj-internet-wr.html) regarding net neutrality, or in Kessler's case, "anti-net neutrality", to prove his point about the net. Net neutrality is really a simple concept. In its simplest form, net neutraity is, well, the Internet as we know it. We are allowed to surf any website we wish. And EVERYONE has equal access. Meaning that as long as I have paid my bill, I can surf MSNBC for as long as I like, just like Republicans can spend their afternoons staring at, well, whatever it is Republicans stare at. Broadband carriers cannot restrict access to any website or restrict its speed, just as AT&T cannot tell you to stop calling your mother.

Broadband companies are loving people like Kessler who are believeing the line of bull comping from their PR departments. Kessler believes that the companies are wanting neutrality abolished because they are finding that illegal downloads are sucking up bandwidth. He aslo states that by killing net neutrality, we will open up the ablilty for companies to compete for our business. Did he not realize that due to the FCC relaxing media monopoly rules, all of the companies he's wishing for did, and for some part still do, exist, they have just been swallowed up by the power hungry conglomerates.

Wake up people. It's all a lie. Media conglomerates are just waiting for the American people to believe the line of crap they're doling out. They are counting on American's to be good and loyal citizens who no longer rock the boat but rather graze contently in her green, green pastures, oblivious to the tornados swirling around them threatening their lives.

Be afraid... Be very afraid...

(http://www.freepress.net/news/30691)  Thanks to wonderful organizations (and their members) like Free Press and Savetheinternet.com Coalition, today, an open forum at Harvard University, began discussions regarding whether the internet should remain an open media or should it be controlled by media conglomerates.   Let's see.  Keep the internet a place where people can gather information for as long as like, from any source FREELY available, on any topic they choose?  OR Make people pay for information based upon a tiered system, where the common person will have limited access to information and have to pay additional fees to access it?  Seems like a no brainer there.  

Seriously!?!

So, last Tuesday we were talking in class about how cameras can and cannot be used regarding the law.  On Wednesday, I found this:http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23144420/ & this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAGb7_g4Aso.  A Hillsborough County Florida deputy Sheriff dumped a paralized man from his wheelchair after she allegedly believed he was being non-compliant when asked to stand to be searched.  Forty seconds after he is wheeled through the doors, she unceremoniously dumps him on the floor as her co-workers stand idly by.  Now, there is no sound, so the conversation between the deputy and the wheelchair-bound gentleman is unknown.   When reviewing the video, the man is apparently not yelling, flailing about or acting an ass.   So I wonder, under what circumstances is it acceptable to dump anyone out of their chair?  I worked for several years as a crisis counselor with sever to profound BD/LD/ED adolescent students.   On the rare occasion, I had reason to remove a student from his/her chair.  Mind you, none of my students were handicapped,  but we spent much longer time (usually several minutes, dependent upon the threat severity) trying to give the student options and discussing the pros and cons to his/her behavior before removing the student.  So I can't help but think that the deputy was being, for a lack of a better word, an ass.

Get 'Em, Copps!!!

Today, February 11, 2007, the Advertising Age's Mya Frazier wrote an article on FCC Commissioner Michael Copps (http://adage.com/article?article_id=124973)  She outline his history of fighting an uphill battle against the Republican controlled FCC and Big Media organizations.  With the upcoming presidential elections, America may find itself under democratic rule.  And with that rule comes the awesome responsibility of crowning a new FCC chairman. (YEA!!!)  And Copps is just the person to wear that crown.  

Having been part of the "3,500 self-described 'media-reform activists'" as Frazier stated, and having heard him speak to us all and later to a much smaller group of approximately 20, I can honestly say, I worship the ground this man walks on.  He has been part of Washington for longer than I have been alive.  He and his democratic cohort, Jonathan Adelstein, have spent years publicly voicing their dissident opinions regarding media control, fighting against Republicans and huge media conglomerates.  

Both of these men are more than willing to travel anywhere, anytime to speak out for the rights we have as citizens in this country regarding the media.  They will speak out against one corporation owing everything media.  They will tirelessly and without complaint spend several hours discussing how we (the average citizen) can be part of the reform, about how we can take an active role in changing the media.   They stand up and fight for the rights of those too small to be heard over the din made by media giants.  

If we are lucky, Copps will be named the Chairman of the FCC.  He will stand up to the large media companies and tell them they are no longer allowed to eat everything in site.  He will tell them they are not welcome.  He will tell them that Washington is 'closed for business'. 

More Media Consolidation

Microsoft has bid $44.6 billion dollars in an effort to buy out Yahoo. Google is freaking out. As Peter Whoriskey of The Washington Post points out in his article from February 4, 2008 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020302675.html), Google is calling Microsoft a monopoly (which it is) that is trying to stifle the competition.

Student Newspaper VS Student Government

Kareem Fahim of The New York Times recently reported on an on-going battle between The Montclarion (the Montclair University student-run newspaper) and the Montclair University student-body government (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/nyregion/29montclair.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=journalism&st=nyt&oref=slogin). Apparently, Ron Chicken, the president, halted the newspapers funds after a series of articles concerning the student government ran in the paper. The artiles were not favorable towards the government. Halting funds is one of the few legal ways that can affectively cease a university publication from going to press.

It seems rather juvenile to me. It's like saying, "I don't like what you're writing, even though it's true. So, I'm going to shut you down. Oh, wait, I can't. That's illegal. But, ah-ha!!! I found a loophole. I can cut off your funding!!!" Grow up people. One of the greatest things about this country is our ablility to speak our minds, outloud, in any forum we so choose, so long as there is no emiment danger or false statements made. If you don't like what an article says, you have every right to write a letter saying so. Or hold a rally. Or sing a song. Or do nothing. It's your choice.

The Internet Police

Since the inception of the Internet, there have been issues with people illegally downloading and/or sharing copyrighted material.  In the January 17, 2008 issue of c|net news.com (http://www.news.com/Should-ATT-police-the-Internet/2100-1034_3-6226523.html?tag=nefd.lede), Marguerite Reardon wrote an article about AT&T's investigation into testing different methods to "filter traffic" within their systems to cease the flow of illegal downloads. AT&T is looking into this technology to assist the company with its peer-to-peer protocols since that is the most common way that illegally copyrighted files are often transferred.  With a possible new policing system in place, AT&T is hoping that the use of such technologies will help them while they are in contract negotiations with both NBC Universal and Disney.

There are a couple of concerns that people have regarding the policing of the Internet, not only by AT&T, but by the Internet as a whole.  AT&T is not the only ISP company that is investigating this technology.  Verizon Communication, Quest Communication and Time Warner have all declined comment regarding Internet policing.  The primary concern with AT&T is a trust issue.  Some question 'why now'?  AT&T spent millions of dollars just a few years ago to keep from doing this exact same thing and now they want to be in the forefront?What's in it for them (besides the money)?  AT&T also was fundamental in passing a law that held them exempt from prosecution should copyrighted material be downloaded illegally through their ISP.  Would the responsibility of filtering all content rest solely upon their shoulders?  If so, AT&T could be held legally responsible for any material that fell through the cracks.  It kind of seems like AT&T has realized there is money to be made somewhere by policing the Internet.

The BIG, HUGE, PINK ELEPHANT IN THE LIVING ROOM issue is privacy laws.  It has been compared to the police checking everyone they see for weapons, just in case.  What information will be gathered by these so-called "filters"?  Who controls them?  Who can and cannot have access to the information they provide?  There  are currently talks between some of the larger media companies regarding what laws need to be put into place before filtering even begins.  What other laws will have to enacted to cover up the mistakes that will be made? Is anyone exempt from the "filters"?  Can we trust AT&T, or any other ISP to use the information they gather only for the purpose of filtering illegally downloaded materials?Probably not.

Please don't get me wrong.  I will only say this once.  ILLEGALLY DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL IS WRONG!!!  The people who take the time to make their music, words, logos, films, tv shows, books, artwork, etc. available to the public are only asking to be compensated for their work.  These people are, for the most part, hardworking, extremely talented people.  And if you disagree, let's see you get out there and do as well, if not better. And yes, sometimes, we the public do not get what we paid for.  But, this is a capitalistic society.  If you don't like paying $20.00 for a CD or $10.00 at the theater, then don't by it or don't go.  Better yet, do something about it.  Write a letter, start a campaign, get involved in an organization.  Just don't sit on your ass, complaining and doing nothing. 

My fear is that these large media conglomerates will use these filters to gather information about our individual preferences.  Things like which websites we visit most often, what our on-line spending habits are, where we bank, our credit card numbers, who are the people we send e-mails and IM's to and all of their information.  Will they use that information to then try and sell us services we either don't need or don't want?  Will they be able to turn this information over to other companies as "data gathering" for "research purposes"?  Will those companies PAY to receive that information?  

I am not a computer or a term paper.  You do not need to "research" or "compute" anything I do.  If I want you to have that information, I will provide it to you.  Until then, stay out of my computer!

And one more thought...  Who is going to police the police?  The FCC?  They're doing such a bang up job with net neutrality and media consolidation that I am sure they will have no problem handling this issue.

Media Consolidation

America, we have a problem...  Multi-media conglomerates are buying up everything in their paths.  And the only people who suffer, are, oh, wait US, the American people.   

Recently, Jon Monday of the Fallbrook Village News (http://www.freepress.net/news/29478) reported that media consolidation is an issue that affects both liberals and conservatives.  Monday points out the origination of the FCC was to regulate broadcasters and ensure diversity of ownership and opinion, to serve the public interest and to serve local needs. However, in 1966, the FCC deregulated media ownership causing a massive buyout of many local media. In 2003, the FCC made an even worse move by allowing crossover ownership of media outlets, allowing conglomerates to own multiple media channels.  

Currently, six multi-media corporations own a significant majority of all the media outlets within the United States.  They control what we watch on television and in the theaters, what we listen to on the radio and what we read in print.  They feed us information they feed we need to know and delete the information they deem unnecessary.   Consolidation affect everyone.

One of the major effects that mass media consolidation has had is the offering of local programming and public affairs have greatly decreased.  National stories such as presidential elections are given far more television airtime than local elections.  Disasters in small or rural towns are often unable to be reported over some radio stations because the local station is often owned by an out-of-town, often out-of-state company that have fixed programming.  Some formatted stations, such as those owned by Clear Channel, are continuously overlapping songs on different stations.  Their formats have become so predictable that you can almost set your watch by them.

Political bias has also had a large effect on the media.  It allows the company owners to change or squash stories that do not adhere to the management’s political beliefs.  They can refuse to air documentaries, news stories, films, songs, speeches and advertisements.  This allows companies to control everything we see and hear.  

By allowing one company, or a small number of companies, to control multiple forms of mass media, we are allowing the companies to dictate to a democratic society biased or slanted views and opinions.  It gives a small number of people a large amount of control over what we learn, what we see and what we hear.  Consolidation causes a lack of diversity in opinions and fewer opportunities to voice those opinions through the media.

This country was built on diversity, opinions and perseverance.  We struggled to gain independence from oppression and tyranny.  If we, the people, do not stand up to FCC and we allow media conglomerates to control every stitch of our media we might as well rename the country Big Business because that is who will rule us.