Speaking of Culture Jamming... (Buy Nothing Day)

I wasn’t really going to buy anything on November 25th anyway. Not that I could, with my bank account showing up with an amount too embarrassing to post here. However, if I did have money I might not have bought anything on that day knowing the reasoning behind this event.

Essentially, Buy Nothing Day is designed to bring awareness to the negative effects of consumerism and, well, capitalism really (bad word choice? Err.). Perhaps upon stopping to think what you would have bought that day, you might realize if you really needed to purchase that specific product from that specific company.

“Spend a day to do nothing for the economy”. That’s part of the event’s tagline. With the state our economy is in now, this is definitely going to stir up controversy. However, like I said before, controversy is an effective tool in culture jamming, because you gain more attention. In my opinion one day isn’t going to affect the economy as much as people think it’s going to. It’s not a holiday, and shopping isn’t going to be non-existent either.

So, make sure you buy nothing on November 25th! Help out society by letting your urge to buy McDonalds this Wednesday subside. Go make a sandwich or something.

E$$o Gas. (Culture Jamming)

As seen in the picture above, culture jamming is being accomplished via Photoshop techniques. Although this method is more recent as opposed to before the internet and software such as Adobe Photoshop were developed, culture jamming is also accomplished by changing advertisements in real life. Either way, culture jamming is a unique way of getting a point across to an audience.

Of course now with the internet, this has become much easier. Culture jamming usually is most effective when it accomplishes two things: grabbing the audience’s attention, and making a lasting impression. Some of the best examples of culture jamming will have the viewer actually questioning what the message the author was trying to make.

With the example above, it’s obvious the message is environmentalism. How do we know this? Well the target for the culture jam is an automobile company, and the text adds commentary to the image.

Most of the time (and also in the example at the top) the company isn’t targeted directly. This posted was edited mostly to encompass the large majority of car companies and consumers of SUV’s or large-type vehicles. However, culture jamming also targets specific companies. McDonalds is perhaps one of the biggest “victims” of culture jamming in fact; they are usually targeted about things like the quality of their food and the wages paid to employees.

These attacks on major corporations are a good thing. It allows attention to be brought to an issue on a wide scale. One person now becomes more important because of the anonymous message they have displayed to a great amount of people. Now with the power of the internet at our fingertips, more attention should be brought to culture jamming. One example is net neutrality. Culture jamming can be effectively used to bring more awareness to the issue of big ISP’s like Rogers and Bell trying to carve out their own internet highways.

This is actually happening, fortunately. Why not create your own culture jam with Photoshop? Upon visiting the right websites, tutorials can be used to learn to use Photoshop quickly. It’s not that hard, I promise.

Oh the wonders of Facebook. (Participatory Cultures)

If you guessed that I was going to talk about Facebook as a participatory culture, you would be right. I also assume the giant blue logo that almost anyone can identify with helped you make that semiotic connection. However, what Facebook is to some, is different to others. Besides the mere recognition with what Facebook is, there are many layers of difference based on who is using Facebook, and for what purposes.

I’d like to draw the attention to my Facebook account for a second. What my account settings are, and the choices I make on Facebook affect other people as well. The obvious fact of a participatory culture is that you are sharing a space on the internet with other people. Most of the people on my Facebook account I know in real life. I can only say two or three of the friends that I have, have not met me in real life. Now, this differs from the friends other people I know have on Facebook. Many of the friends on their lists they met through the internet, and don’t actually know in real life.

Participatory cultures are a fundamental part of our internet at the moment. They bring a freer atmosphere to sharing information and collaborating. However, this does not come with negatives as well. As Neil Postman noted, our current society needs to be studied from a moral point of view (THE ECOLOGY OF MEDIA, 1). For example, a formula was “invented” online to describe a certain type of people on the internet called “trolls”. The formula basically stated that a normal person, mixed with the anonymity of the internet, created a person that conveyed strong and mostly controversial opinions about a certain person or user-generated content online. This happens when using Facebook as well, referring to people who make fake accounts and harass people online.

Participatory cultures are what is defining the internet at the moment. These cultures may be more restricted if net neutrality were to dissolve. No longer will user-generated content be free to produce and display.

Fortunately, we currently make up most of the internet at the moment, so let’s see them try.

Works Cited:
Postman, Neil. "The Humanism of Media Ecology." Media Ecology Association. 17 June 2000. Fordham University, Web. 5 Oct 2009. .

We are in a war, Neo. (Net Neutrality)

“…they are the gatekeepers. They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys, which means that sooner or later, someone is going to have to fight them.” - Morpheus, The Matrix

On the topic of net neutrality, I found it appropriate to post this quote from the Matrix. Perhaps there is no “matrix” per se that we live in, but the analogy to ISPs such as Rogers and Bell is applicable. What if these large internet service providers actually became the gatekeepers to all information on the internet? Well, there’s a bit more to it than that.

Essentially, major internet companies such as Rogers and Bell want bigger profits from this new technology called the internet. But wait – I know what you’re thinking, don’t these companies make enough money as it is? Well, that is up for debate (no it’s not) but is beside the point. The negative implications of these companies trying to gain access to our internet are far too important to ignore.
To put the dilemma into perspective, think about this. Imagine a world in which the wealthy gain a bigger connection to information stored on the internet. Companies will tell you what you can access and at what price. Sound fair? Maybe if you’re a big corporation trying to monopolize on the genius of the internet, but for the rest of us…this isn’t a good thing.

The problem of net neutrality flows deeper than losing content and being restricted, though. If major corporations have a grip on the content flow of the internet, they essentially have a way of controlling people. Now am I saying that there is a giant conspiracy to slowly brainwash the human race? Maybe, but for those of you who aren’t as extremist, I’d like you to think about what television has been able to accomplish over the past few decades. These corporations have gotten good at showing whatever makes them the most money on television; keeping in mind putting an idea on the television is much more expensive than the internet. What will they do to the internet then? We can see already what they are trying to do, and it’s not fair, to say the least.

Someone is going to have to fight them, so why shouldn’t it be us? After all, we are the biggest part of the internet, around 60% of it at least – in user-generated content. Why should companies who have nothing to do with the creation or essence of the web have control over it?

They shouldn’t. Don’t let them, and speak up!

http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/search/label/Net%20Neutrality

"Broadcast Yourself" (Fake News)

Independent media is one of the more relevant aspects to journalism and the news which has been amplified by the internet. This type of news now not only includes information about current, global (or local) topics, but is free and only limited by what the user decides to limit it to.

This recent outburst of ‘public news’ is actually quite fascinating. As with many things concerning the media, there are both a good and bad side to this new phenomenon. For one, people (using the internet) can spread messages pertaining to a certain topic without any censorship or credentials for that matter. Things such as hate speech and inaccurate information are now free to the public's eye.

In my opinion, while this is true, it also opens up opportunities for a more honest look at where our world is going. Take for example, YouTube. During the presidential campaigns, people posted thousands of videos giving their personal opinions on what they thought of each candidate. I think this enables us to have a much more efficient democracy (applying this to Canada as well, of course) because of us now having a venue to exercise our freedom of speech.

Analyze this! (Theory/Praxis)

It is a well known fact that we are bombarded with the media and advertising every single day. In fact, Marshall McLuhan said we are like fish not knowing water until beached. If this is true then, companies are using mediums the best way that they can to promote their messages. That being said, it is a well known fact that advertising is indeed effective. That being the case, the only way for advertisements to be effective is to have enough people to ‘buy’ into them.

Are you media literate? Many aren’t.

What does this mean then? Well, ask yourself this question: do you stop and think about some of the ads you see around you? Or do you merely just say “oh that’s cool” to most?

It takes more than stopping and thinking, though. That’s only the first step in becoming ‘media literate’. Understanding the ways companies are using certain techniques and methods is another step in not ‘falling in their trap’, if you will.

What is the importance of being media literate? Is it merely to say that you’ve successfully deconstructed the inner workings of a company and not fallen subject to their tactics? Perhaps there is more to it than that. Being aware of what is constantly around you is the first step in understanding where our culture is going. Don’t be stuck in the ‘rear-view mirror’ as illustrated by Marshall McLuhan, observe what is in front of you now, and how it is changing us. That is the first step in understanding what “us” is, and where we are going.


Personally, I am always trying to be aware of the impact media has on me, even when I do become overwhelmed by it. If I find myself buying something because of the ad I saw on television for example, I analyze how this particular advertisement worked on me. What was my ‘weakness’ that encouraged me to buy this product? From there, I usually take note of this and try to remember it for future encounters with other products.

Take for example Apple Computers. I personally own an iPhone, and I’d like to point out their advertisements played a huge role in me purchasing one. Apple uses a very specific way of getting people to buy their products, and more often than not, end up coming out with a newer model of your product after they’ve hooked you into buying the first one. I view Apple Computers as one of the more effective companies in having you buy their products. Check out this older iPhone commercial to see what I mean. It’s called “Amazing”.

Media Tactics: When is Too Much? (Decoding/Deconstructing Advertising)

Check out the new ad for the clothes line for Dolce and Gabanna. Initial reaction? Some of you may recognize this ad as the one pulled for depicting ‘gang rape’. Others may just flip past this ad in a magazine as “just another edgy D&G ad”.

However, deconstruction of this advertisement shows two things:

1. This is ad is probably directed at men.

Besides the obvious fact that the majority of the clothing models are men, the woman is depicted in a way that is demeaning to herself. Also, examine the way the men are viewing the woman, most are looking down at her while she lays helplessly on the ground. John Berger, a famous art critic, notes in his essay Ways of Seeing that women are portrayed in paintings as objects, and more often than not they are depicted as being lower than men, and usually seen in some provocative way (Ways of Seeing, 52). This ad is evidently no exception.

2. This ad is eye-catching.

Whether or not this ad was actually trying to depict gang rape or not, it has done the job of catching our attention. As with many name-brand designer clothing ads, most of the time the advertisement is directed at promoting the company name rather than the actual apparel. Take for example, the famous Abercrombie and Fitch clothing line. Most of their ads consist of people hardly wearing clothing at all. Media can affect us in negative ways, but also make us think (about the company, advertisement, whatever -we are thinking about it).

John Berger displays a key idea in discussing the role women play in photos. The term ‘sex sells’ is used quite frequently when discussing advertisements like the one pictured above. Women sell too, or rather are used as a method to sell. There is of course the moral debate of whether women should be portrayed in this way in order to promote a company, but that is part of what makes this advertisement so effective. It has us thinking.

Works Cited:
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London, England: Penguin Books, 1972. Print.