24

Twenty-four hours without media; a terrifying thought. However, I almost succeeded in the assignment. Circumstance allowed me to use previous engagements to eliminate most of that time, during which I was not allowed to enjoy the luxuries of media anyway. An invaluable tool to today’s society, cell phones, the Internet and TV keep us connected. Without them, we are alone.

Last weekend I spent four days in Chicago for the American Model United Nations (AMUN) conference. The annual conference hosts over two thousand students and is debatably a big deal. Not only that, the times that you are required to be in session are grueling. From 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. (with hour breaks for meals), for three days, I sat in a room with delegates representing a host of countries debating world issues. During these simulations, under AMUN rules, I was not allowed to use my laptop, much less listen to my Ipod or the radio. Knowing this I set about making my 24-hour media fast a little easier. On Sunday, November 21^st, 2010, I left media behind.

At 7:30 a.m. I woke up, turned my alarm off, put my cell phone in a drawer, and started my stopwatch. From that moment on, I was to be media-free. Because I was in conference and had I left my cell phone in my room, I couldn’t fail even if I wanted to. During those thirteen and a half hours, the only withdrawal symptom was fleeting anxiety. I hoped no one was trying to contact me, that nothing had happened. I felt completely isolated from everyone except those in the room with me. However unnerving this was, the time passed quickly and distractions from the committee made me think less and less about it.

Ten O’clock finally rolled around. Without a phone to contact my friends I turned to Jesse, my partner, to get a hold of them for me. I am unsure whether this is a loophole or if I am cheating. Hindsight is 20/20 but at the time I thought it was okay. Once Jesse had rallied the troops we set out for a night of partying. During which there was much more to focus on than TV (girls, drinks, friends.) We stayed in the hotel instead of going to a bar or club, so TVs and music weren’t an issue either. Once in the hotel room where this gathering was happening, someone grabbed the remote for the TV. I tackled him, removed the remote, and successfully avoided failing, while providing amusement for those in the room.

At around 2 a.m. I retreated to my own hotel room to sleep. I started my nightly routine getting ready for bed (shearing off my clothes and landing face first into my pillow). I then proceeded to set my alarm for 7:30 a.m. After I did I realized my mistake; I set the alarm on my cell phone. Ready to scream and completely disappointed I sat and thought about how much I rely on that little device. It tells me who is doing what (via twitter and text), allows me to contact nearly anyone whenever I want, and even tells me when to wake up every morning. Even with conference and the debatable cheating I was unable to last 24-hours without media. I had failed.

From the beginning I knew it would be nearly impossible to stay away from media for twenty-four hours, especially without having something else to keep me occupied. If I hadn’t used AMUN as a crutch for success, I doubt I would have lasted an hour. It seems the question is the same one we have been discussing all semester; is our reliance on technology good or bad. I will stick by my argument and say it is only a tool. The way we use technology can be good or bad, but it is our responsibility to decide just that.

Take my failure; setting my alarm on my cell phone. Why is this bad? I use my cell phone because I can set a multitude of alarms, use different ring tones, and take it anywhere. I don’t have to worry about calling down for a wake up call, or using the provided alarm clock radio in the room. Many times I have tried and failed getting up because those devices aren’t familiar to me. My cell phone, however, is consistent. I can rely on it to get me up on time. It is a tool. To ask us to spend twenty-four hours without a tool we use the most is like asking someone to build a house without a hammer. Technology keeps us informed, entertained and moving down the path we want. Whether that path be a news junkie or a TV slug is up to the user, not the media.

“The medium is the message,” Federman reminds us. The programming isn’t the point. It is the social changes we see as an effect of the introduction of the technology. Because we rely on media so much, our social circles have shifted, our activity level has lowered, and we are more prone to entertainment then information. We know a little about a lot, instead of a lot about a little. These changes are too recent to fully understand the consequences, for better or for worse. What is not debated is the fact that media is an integral part of life for the majority of this country’s population.

Moreover according to Walker my generation is full of, “savvy, articulate, emotionally attached and educated consumers of electronic media.” Though we are consistently bombarded with media and advertising, because we grew up with it, we see through it, “millennials don't actually think much about it.” This is an invaluable point. We can swim through the mess of information to get where we are going, something I believe a lot of scholars (read: old people) miss. They are not indoctrinated into media as we are. My generation has always had (as far as remembering is important) the Internet, television, and when we came of age to own a cell phone is right when they came out, so we had those too. We are test group A, and it is far too soon to say whether our reliance on technology and media is negative or positive, only that our experience has been vastly different than our parents. Our patterns of social interaction and daily living have little in common, on a surface examination, with the patterns of our elders. Change is rarely welcomed, fear runs rampant through our society and this is just another rash of it.

‘Build a house without a hammer, because hammers make it easier to bruise your thumb.’ Technology is a tool. It makes society more productive, more immediate and more connected. I can’t live without it, neither can most people, so what? We are using a newly available tool to its greatest extent, consistently finding new ways to do so. Through which we seek improve our society and ourselves. Fear is always associated with change, sometimes rightly so, but sometimes not. We need to not jump to conclusions and watch as technology continues, like it has in the past, to dictate how we move forward as a society and a species.

Federman, M. (2004). What is the Meaning of the Medium is the Message? Retrieved from http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/MeaningTheMediumistheMessage.pdf.

Walker, Danna. "The Longest Day." The Washington Post 5 Aug. 2007 Page 2.

Medium is the message is the medium is the message is the medium...

“The medium is the message” means we know the extension of ourselves (medium) comes from the changes that the medium effects. Federman explains that the base reading of the quote “the medium is the message,” for example the TV set is more important than the program on it, is untrue. Federman shows McLuhan’s quotes, which define medium and message and lend to his definition of the phrase. Medium refers to, “any extension of ourselves” and message is “the change of scale or pace or pattern.” Every time a new medium is introduced to society we see changes in the way society functions. For example, one could argue the rise of cable television (read: national programming) has led to the steady decline in American’s interest for state and local politics, or that because we sit to watch TV, American’s are becoming more obese. Both of these show the changes TV has made, not by it’s content, but because of it’s existence. This is exactly McLuhan and Federman’s point; the extension of ourselves can be understood through the effects it has on society.

To apply McLuhan’s concept to radio as a whole is too broad, so I will focus on radio after the transistor radio was introduced (1948). “The medium is the message,” radio changed the way we get out and receive information, making people more informed more immediately, giving those without access to a host of information. Radio changed the way American’s perceived their country, during The Great Depression it helped keep families, and this country, together. Radio can also be the message. With the introduction of TV many American families thought that radio was soon to be swept away, deemed obsolete. Yet we still have radios in every car today, why wasn’t radio simply pushed out? Radio became a function of the social changes that the introduction of the new technology, TV, brought about.

Radio lasted because of a few reasons, they got smaller, they got local, and they got records. “This local emphasis, of which the deejay was only one facet, became the single most important element in radio’s success during the television era,” a quote from Forntale and Mills, explicitly states the changes that happened to radio as a direct result of the introduction of television. Yet, even this could be interpreted as a new form of media, because it also had it’s own new set of consequences. One was increased positive attention to minority groups, especially African-Americans. Even though whites owned the stations, black radio was a breakthrough, not only did it help to unify their own communities, whites listened it to as well.  

“The medium is the message.” Programming and the content of any new technology can be changed. The way we understand the new mediums, is to look at the changes they create in society, at any level.  The importance of new technology, through this method, is finally understood.

Federman, M. (2004). What is the Meaning of the Medium is the Message? Retrieved <DATE> from http://individual.utoronto.ca/markfederman/MeaningTheMediumistheMessage.pdf.

Forntale, Peter. Mills, Joshua E. Radio in the Television Age. In D. Crowley, P. Heyer, Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society. 6th Ed. p 214-218. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Surface Meaning

Is advertising taking over the way we think; probably. I currently subscribe to Gentleman’s Quarterly, which I flipped through and in no more than five minutes found an ad ripe for “deconstruction.” I will first use Firth’s method of analyzing ads to rip apart this beauty, then at least try to skim the surface of what it means for anyone who sees it. I will focus on what the ad says to men, to which it is obviously targeted to, being in Gentleman’s Quarterly. I have included an image of the ad at the bottom of the page for reference.

“Surface meaning” is the first lens through which I will analyze the ad. According to Firth “surface meaning” is simply describing the ad by essentially listing its contents. So, we have two couples, smiling and holding one another. They are wearing heavy jackets and scarf’s so we can assume it is winter, even though it is clear and sunny. There is a lighthouse and rocks in the background, so they are probably on a beach somewhere. Judging by the age of the lighthouse and the terrain it is in New England. Below that we have another picture of a pair of feet in Sperry boots. By the look of the jeans and style of the boot it is a man, most likely one from above. The man is stepping in the water. Finally, in the bottom right corner there reads “A Passion For the Sea – Sperry Top–Sider” with a logo and website, white background, blue and grey text.

“The intended meaning” is the meaning the advertiser wants to communicate to you. In this ad it is pretty straightforward. Sperry wants you to buy their boots so you can go on day trips to the coast in the winter and be comfortable, also that their boots are good for casual and sophisticated looks. If you notice, the man on the right is dressed down. He has on a shirt, plain coat, and loose fitting khakis. A relaxed everyday outfit, while the man on the right is in his yuppie sweater and trendy ripped jeans. In addition, that the boots are waterproof, and great if you like the ocean.

“The Cultural or Ideological Meaning” is what the ad relates to me, the straight white male.  This ad says that to be happy I need to be a straight, rich, physically fit, attractive, white male with a white girlfriend who is similarly fit and attractive. First we’ll tackle the sexual preference; both men are being held passionately by women, it’s pretty straight-forward. The money comes in when we examine that beautiful watch that the man on the right is wearing. It is steel, shiny and big, a sure sign of both masculinity and wealth. I don’t think anyone would question the looks and fitness of the models. It also communicates a racially homogenous relationship; both the men are white (who we can assume are friends out on a double date of sorts) and both girlfriends are white.

“Analyzing Social Relationships” is another way Firth examines the ad in his essay, and a method I will also employ. To analyze the social relationships I need to “look at the relationships being depicted between the people featured in the advertising.” Firth uses William O’Barr’s methods of finding power structures in what we see. So, as previously stated we have two A-typical white couples on retreat to a New England beach. I will first point out how the couples are interacting; both women are literally clinging to their male counterparts who are standing upright supporting them. Moreover, only the male’s boots are shot in the water, even though Sperry sells women’s boots as well. Now try reversing the roles of the men and women. What if the men were holding the women and she was in fact going into the water in her pair of Sperry boots? Would it seem odd or out of place, probably. What if one of the women was taller then one of the men? What if one of the people was overweight? What if one of the couples was Black/African-American or Hispanic or Asian or Middle Eastern? What if one of the couples was bi-racial? What if one of the couples was gay? What if there were no couples and just two men with no connotation?

One thing I didn’t read in any of the articles was the impact on the consumer’s willingness to buy. While advertisers perpetuate a straight, wealthy, white, patriarchal ideology, does this affect the view of the brand? For example, take each of the questions in the previous paragraph, and then ask yourself, if you saw those changes, would you be as willing to buy their product? I am positive that if at least one of those were actually true, you would be less willing. The ad isn’t really about buying shoes; it’s about buying a life the advertisers have created. Luckily for them the life you want is the one that they themselves, and a group of other corporations, have for decades pounded into your brain.

Consumer culture has an impact on the way we as humans see the world around us. It has told us through ads like these what the ideal is; that we need the money, the race, the sex, the sexual preference, the masculinity, the looks and the girlfriend to be happy. Why else would they all be smiling so much, don’t you want to be happy, here’s how; buy the shoes. In Ruskin and Schor’s article they cite a study by UCLA on what student’s feel is a “very important or essential life goal … succeeding financially has increased to a 13-year high…” Why else would people need money if not to buy things? What thing do they need a lot of money to buy; happiness. Commercialism has made the means to happiness the goods they sell. It has dictated what happiness is, what it is made of, and the idea that it can be bought.

So then what is happiness? This question I have no answer for. I see it in a big house with beautiful children and a spouse, age fifty sitting beside a fire reading, enjoying the success, recognition, and the monetary skyscraper I have made for myself. This is just another image consumer culture has put into my brain. At this point it is impossible to escape it. Yet there is hope; to know what’s happening, how it’s affecting you and the world around you, is the first step to escaping its grasp. Like Firth says, “by learning how to critically deconstruct advertisements we can begin to move away from the role of spectator to become participants in the making and remaking of ourselves and of a more democratic society.” To really top of the joke, of the shoes I own, my Sperry boat shoes are my favorite.

Bib.

Frith, Katherine Toland. "Undressing the Ad: Reading Culture in Advertising." Undressing the Ad: Reading Culture in Advertising. New York: Peter Lang, 1997. Print.

Ruskin, Gary. Schor, Juliet. Every Nook and Cranny: The Dangerous Spread of Commercialized Cultural. Chapter 26. 

Sperry Top-Sider. Advertisement. GQ Magazine. November 2010. Page 129.