I saw this on AdWeek and thought it really related to today’s discussion of violence in media. It offers an infographic on how advertisers are now starting to shy away from programs that feature explicitly violent material because there have been some correlation between these and negative images of their brand. It’s a neat and quick little infographic that I thought I would share!
Today in class we watched following famous campaign ad put out by LBJ in 1964:
We talked about this as an example of enthymeme, a type of rhetoric that lets us “fill in the blanks.” However, there are numerous other rhetorical strategies that can be employed in political ads, and I’ve rounded up a few below.
While you might not realize it today, not all political ads are negative. Eisenhower in 1952 and JFK in 1960 both had catchy jingles to bring in votes.
Of the two, I think I like Ike’s better. It’s just a little catchier. Otherwise, there’s really not a lot of policy discussion going on in these.
Now it’s time to go negative. First up Nixon’s challenger, McGovern, is attacked on his defense spending:
This is a pretty straightforward ad that comes right out and says: “McGovern will cut defense spending.” I particularly like the simple toy imagery here.
In the next ad, Hubert Humphrey finds Spiro Agnew hilarious:
Unfortunately, Humphrey would never be asked to play the Joker.
If you’ve been watching CNN’s “Race to the White House” series (narrated by Kevin Spacey), these next two ads may look familiar. In the 1988 election, Bush did a great job of first setting the agenda to focus on security instead of economic concerns, where Dukkakis was more confident. The first ad, the famous “Willie Horton” ad, was not actually released by Bush’s campaign. The second focuses on a strong, lasting image with the revolving door.
I’m reminded of some postmodern theories like Postman’s, which focus on separating context from imagery. The campaign also featured what could be considered several “pseudo-events,” including the infamous attempt to stage shots of Dukkakis driving in a tank.
Next, Reagan takes a different approach, appealing to patriotism.
Clearly, people who don’t vote for Reagan most likely hate America.
To look at a non-presidential ad, in this ad, Dale Peterson wants your vote for Commissioner of Agriculture. This ad has everything. It appeals to patriotism, threatens you with “illegals busting in by the thousands,” and accuses his opponent of stealing signs and taking illegal bribes. He even gets in some ad hominem action, calling his opponent a “dummy”.
My favorite part is the way he silently pulls out the rifle at :51.
Finally, here is what most people would agree is the greatest political ad ever created:
Inspired by the blackish episode, I began surfing the web for more opinions/ discussion about the use of the “n” word. Culturally, debate about the word often happens in the hip hop/rap medium. Our discussion on cultural appropriation in class touched on some of the sources of contention in the debate. While use of the “n” word is pervasive in our society, it is still as taboo as it gets in the discussion of race relations in America; while mention of the word in any room will immediately bring tension, another group takes pride in the ability to reclaim the word.
The discussion on who is entitled to use the word and what context the word can be used is one that I have with my friends often. While I have often thought the meaning and appropriateness of the word is dependent on the cultural context of it’s use, the above video of featuring Chris Collinsworth, an NFL Sportscaster is poignant in revealing the decisive nature of the word in a locker room. While he is clear in forbidding white football players from using the word at all, he appears to offer a less severe warning for African American players. He references to the divisive nature of the word and it’s potential negative impact on the team chemistry as reasons to opt for not using the word.
What do you guys think about Collinsworth’s message? Is he asking too much of white players specifically? Should use of the word be banned in the NFL because it’s a professional organization?
I LOVE Buffy the Vampire Slayer (evident by the fact that I binged all seven seasons over the summer). Also, Dr Maurantonio and I discussed how this is a thing in the academic field. That said, my favorite character quickly became Willow Rosenberg. (It’s been almost 20 years since the show debuted, but…spoiler warning) Willow starts off as the quirky friend/sidekick to the show’s protagonist, Buffy. However, over the seven season run Willow’s character is developed and in season four, after previously having love interest in two male characters, her sexuality is explored during her time in college. I’ll let the attached link further explore the significance of how her coming out and sexuality are represented in the show, which was a mainstream staple in the late 90s/ early 00s. But, I think this is a nice point of departure to analyze how similar scenes play out in popular media today. (Also, I love Willow but I was initially on the fence about the openly lesbian character being a witch. However, I think it’s a truly beautiful narrative when the larger Buffy context is considered)
I came across this video while searching for more information on the Central Park Five and I think this is a very poignant representation of our discussions we have been having in the last two classes.
This satire video was created by MTV’s Look Different campaign to highlight the issue of white privilege. MTV strategically placed facts throughout the video in a humorous way to help inform us on how real this issue is and how it impacts the lives of the black community.
As you can imagine, there has been extreme backlash towards the video with some arguing that MTV went too far. Those who provided such backlash also argued that white privilege and racism is not a joke. However, an article from The Daily Mail, who believes in MTV’s video purpose, quotes The Huffington Post’s Black Voices saying the video was “painfully honest and all too real”.
This video stung me in the sense that I don’t really know if I agree with MTV or if I thought its humor masked the real issue being discussed. It is definitely a very vivid representation of white privilege and is meant to have some degree of exaggeration. Nonetheless, I’d love to hear some of your comments about whether you think MTV’s video was a good representation of white privilege or if MTV took the content too far?
This video is something that I came across less than a year ago following events such as the death of Freddie Gray, the Baltimore protests, and the Charleston Church shooting. In the video we see how media coverage changes based on race, with one of the best examples being that a gathering of white people is labeled as an altercation or a dispute while a gathering of black people is labeled as a riot. In watching this video, I feel that it is interesting to see the injustice that is present in media coverage. Furthermore, after watching a film like Central Park Five, it is clear that not much has changed in the way that the media portrays people of color. With that said, what are your thoughts on the video and on the topic in general?
After reading some of the article, there is evidence that being away from phones actually produced a similar response that depression or severe anxiety does on these teens. Over a cell phone, over the internet? The article mentions there were a lot of failures which is to be expected. Students admitted that going without their cell phones was very difficult.
I know that we all did this and I’m curious to see if you guys had similar issues with your fast experiment. I know personally, I am too attached to my phone. I acknowledge it but I guess that doesn’t make it any better. I think it’s a real discussion that needs to be had for the younger generation because too much media I think IS a bad thing, and could potentially produce a negative impact on people if misused or even overused.
In that same line of thinking, I saw an ad for this tv show today and was wondering if anybody had heard about it? It really demonstrates to me the impact that the internet has on our daily life, even when we think it is a safe space or anonymous zone where we can post freely that which we would rather not say in person. It could potentially be interesting given our class discussions on the internet and it’s presence!
What is pictured above is Kesha sobbing after hearing the verdict from the judge over the weekend. For the past year or so Kesha has been in an ongoing legal battle against her former producer and alleged abuser, Dr. Luke and the record label Sony. Kesha alleges that Dr. Luke sexually assaulted her and consistently committed emotional abuse to her to the point that she developed an eating disorder after she was told that she was too fat. Recently, she even checked into rehab for this disorder. After hearing the verdict, the industry was in shock. How could the judge side with this monster who took advantage of a young and hopeful rising star? Well, celebrities and fellow women in the industry have taken to social media to voice their support and Taylor Swift has even donated $250,000 to whatever Kesha may need during this time (as she is unable to work due to the fact that she would still have to work with her accused).
The extremely messed up thing here is that this is not uncommon. It is not uncommon for women to feel like they need to lose weight at the advice of their producer or agent. It is not uncommon for assault and abuse to continue to happen. These women and yes, even men, are put in a position where they are at the mercy of those who have the power to make them somebody. It is indeed sad to see these events surrounding Kesha and I can only hope that moving forward she is able to find peace and get back to work with positive people surrounding her.
Supporters on Facebook constantly cite Chris Brown and his incident and how his career did not suffer, and other members of bands (men) who had similar situations but who were allowed to get out of contracts so that they were able to continue their art.
I think the real issue here is that Kesha is not able to continue making music in a safe and reasonable environment, regardless if the accusations are true or false, the court should have given her that opportunity. She has given enough time to this guy and after her real issues that have resulted from working with him (i.e. checking into rehab for eating disorder, this supposed assault) she should be allowed to move on.
What do you guys think about this? Do you think that men have it easier getting out of contract negotiations? Do you think that Kesha should just keep making music in her current contract? Do you think the industry needs to look at a better way of policing this sort of abuse? Also, what about Taylor Swift- when I saw it, I thought that is awesome but then I thought about it from a PR strategy? If you’re going to donate that kind of money to a person, wouldn’t you want to do it in private- or is that just me?
This news story has been all over the place this past week. I found a great summary of what it entails here on Buzz Feed News.
Essentially Syed Farook was one of the San Bernardino terrorists and his phone was confiscated by the government immediately after the attack. His Apple ID password for the iPhone was changed soon after it was confiscated. This meant that the FBI then had no way to access the contents of the phone. Therefore the FBI requested that Apple create a special “backdoor” way to break into the phone and retrieve Farook’s information, which presumably contains details of the planning and execution of the December 2nd attacks that left 14 people dead.
Apple is refusing to create this backdoor technique. The catch is that if the Apple ID password had not been reset by someone after it was taken by the government then Apple would have been able to easily retrieve the information on the phone with an iCloud backup. However, someone in the San Bernardino Health Department did change the Apple ID password and they are claiming that they worked with the FBI to do so, and this thus made it eternally more difficult for Apple to unlock the information on the phone, which in turn caused the FBI to call for them to create a backdoor method for retrieving the information.
Clearly politics and the oligopoly of the FBI and Apple are playing a large role in this case. The political economy of Apple is insurmountable and therefore they understand the implications of creating a backdoor technique to unlock the private information of iPhones. It does make me wonder though if the FBI had the Apple ID password reset on purpose, because they knew that it would mean that they could call for Apple to create a backdoor hacking system that they then could use on many more phones to retrieve private information. Thoughts??
Over the years, the superhero genre has become quite popular with a variety of movies and tv shows being released every year. To some extent, the logic of safety seems to be present as these family friendly releases are making a lot of money. Although this formula seems to work very well, the release of the new Deadpool movie suggest that there may be changes in how superhero movies are made. Specifically, the success of this R rated movies has inspired Marvel to consider making more R rated superhero movies. With that said, what do you think about this possible change in the superhero genre? Would an R rated movie be more appealing to you? Do you think R rated superhero movies would be successful?