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.

Ever been to the beach? (Mass Media)

A fish doesn’t know water until beached – Marshall McLuhan

Our society doesn’t know the mass media until disconnected. Ever been to a completely remote part of earth without any technology? Some may describe this experience as ‘being at peace with nature’. But how many of us could live that way forever?

Marshall McLuhan had quite a few opinions on what the term “mass media” actually meant, and he describes it quite simply as the technological world around us. His infamous saying “the medium is the message” plays a key role in explaining the affect the media has on everyone today.

According to McLuhan, the water is all of the technological mediums around us, and the beach is only realized when we are pulled out of the giant sea of media that society is engulfed in.

The question is, are we drowning or swimming?

It all depends on the moral viewpoints you have of the media. Neil Postman believes that the constant flow of media needs to be monitored and viewed cautiously (Postman, 7). If the mass media is what is ‘housing’ our culture, should we just accept it rather than change it?

This brings up the debate of whether or not the media needs to be ‘controlled’. The internet in particular plays a big role in this debate. Because of its power, the internet has the ability to shape the way different cultures behave and interact with each other. Whether it is from a political standpoint or just merely on a social level, the internet is changing the way we live.

Studying the way ‘the world lives’ is difficult, though. However, according to Marshall McLuhan, it needs to be done. He believed that many were too wrapped up in studying the history of our race, instead of looking at what is happening now, in the present. He called this the “rear-view mirror” theory. Of course, you cannot drive a car without looking directly ahead of you. McLuhan suggested that you cannot drive humanity forward whilst looking at the past ("The Playboy Interview", 20).

How do things like television, radio, and the internet change the way our race is being shaped? According to McLuhan, it is up to the ‘artists’, the ones looking forward instead of backward, that will lead the way in developing better ways to ‘swim’ in the mass media engulfing us all.

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

"The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan." Playboy March 1969.: n. pag. Web. 10 Oct 2009.

The Internet: Beyond Good and Evil? (The Ecology of Media)

The World Wide Web is arguably one of the biggest phenomenons to hit the 20th and 21st century. It is what enables this journal to be published free of charge, and for anyone with a connection to view. However, before I get into any of the implications of the internet, I’d like to focus on the famous media scholar Neil Postman.

Neil Postman essentially developed the idea of having ‘media ecology’. And within that body describing the way humans and culture develop within a certain technology, there are finer details to explore.

In a keynote address delivered at the Inaugural Media Ecology Association Convention, Postman describes his viewpoint of studying media as more ‘moralistic’ (Postman, 2). As opposed to Marshall McLuhan (whose name frequently, and most appropriately, appears in his speech), Postman believed that instead of just examining the media without any prejudice (as McLuhan suggests), one should be able to deconstruct the present media with great prejudice, and examine if a certain medium is actually benefiting our society (Postman, 7).

If we were to take Postman’s idea and combine morals with the study of a medium, how then should the internet be viewed? It boils down to how the internet is affecting us as human beings. At the end of his speech, Postman notes that:

“…it [media ecology] exists to further our insights into how we stand as human beings, how we are doing morally in the journey we are taking” (Postman, 7).

The internet is a vast topic that can be discussed for days. However, important questions can be posed that enable us to think about how our generation is progressing with the use of the internet.

For one, the internet is constantly growing. Some popular sites include Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. If you notice, there is a common link between these three web phenomenons, and that is networking.

Yes, networking is only one of the many uses for the internet, but it is ever more prevalent today. Going back to an idea posed by Marshall McLuhan, we are expanding our range of communication at an alarmingly rapid rate and widening the ‘global village’("The Playboy Interview", 17).

But, how does this relate to media ecology and Postman’s idea of ‘media morality’? Where is this taking our societies? In a word, forward in many ways. Whether it’s political or social issues, networking sites can change the way people view a certain issue, and awareness can be raised.

That being said, we should approach the internet with particular scrutiny as well. Whether or not the internet is a ‘good’ or ‘evil’ medium, it would be wise to remember the words of McLuhan when he warned future generations about the ‘overload of sensory’ we would experience with the progression of new technologies (McLuhan). Internet users can anonymously choose to influence other users on the web, and opens up a method of communication that was never seen before. The internet is not the real world, and we must be aware of technology now in the present day and how it is changing the way we communicate with others.

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

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

"The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan." Playboy March 1969.: n. pag. Web. 10 Oct 2009.

More than Just a “Blog”? (Academic Blogging)

As I sit here at my desktop plugging away at my keyboard, I stop for a moment, and think about what exactly I am writing about. Blogging? No, that is much too vague. Actually, it is, because in fact writing about blogging is a bit redundant and somewhat boring. Instead, I choose to write about how this very blog, I hope, is going to change you (and by extension, me in the process).

Change you? A bit pretentious wouldn’t you say? But this is my goal, and I see no other way to write in my online journal except to benefit you, my audience. After all, the medium is the message ("The Playboy Interview", 2) and by extension of the internet, this blog serves its purpose as that medium. That being said, I would like to pose two questions before continuing to write any more.

1. What does having your own space on the internet mean to you?
2. If you were to suddenly have a lot of popularity with your blog, which way would you try and influence people in?

After thinking about the first question, I reestablished a strong feeling of a personal interconnectivity with the internet once again. It is true; we take for granted what is readily available to us. However, if I were to answer this question in one word it would be ‘power’. Power is a word with many meanings though, so I will explain myself. I reckon power to being able to change the way a person thinks about something. What philosopher Marshall McLuhan says is true, media has changed and grown at a rapid rate. Twenty years ago, one could only dream of having a journal published in a book. Imagine that – the thought of knowing your work was actually good enough to be published somewhere, for someone else to read and be influenced by it. The internet makes this possible for anyone with a connection, and in turn opens up a whole new dimension of information and knowledge. This does not come without a price though. Some people will influence others the wrong way, intentionally or not. So I ask that you only do one thing when reading my blog, and that is to question, and think for yourself. I would never accept something anyone wrote for face value just ‘because’.

The second question was a bit confusing at first (confused by my own question, brilliant). I suppose there is only one answer for me personally, and that is to not try and influence people at all. Here is what I see, here’s my take on it, and the rest is up to you.

Enjoy.

Works Cited:
"The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan." Playboy March 1969.: n. pag. Web. 2 Oct 2009. .