Post with 1 note
“I Wear No Pants”
The new Dockers advertising campaign can best be understood by its humorous slogan “It’s time to wear the pants,” taking from the form of expression that describes the traditionally defined male role in a romantic relationship of being the dominant partner. It is Levi Strauss & Company’s most aggressive marketing venture for its Dockers line of khakis and trousers in the last decade, with an estimated budget of around twenty million dollars, and is specifically targeted towards men who are pre-middle age between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five. The company hopes to introduce the khaki category in a big way to a younger consumer crowd who appear to show that they care about their appearance and desire to look grown-up, but at the same time allowing the consumer to expand their wardrobe at a good value in a manner that is more economically feasible.
In the television commercial as well as the marketing posters the campaign aims to construct male masculinity through dominant heteronormative perspectives that are characterized by personality traits associated with aggression, control, and chivalry in order to “answer the call of manhood.” This construct allows for masculinity to be commercialized and commoditized into something that can be bought simply through wearing a pair of Dockers brand khakis. However, with this being said, a close ideological analysis of this marketing campaign demonstrates several logical fallacies that are arrived at through the assimilation of sexism, homophobia, misogyny, misandry, androgyny, and fear of castration in the mainstream media and popular culture at large.
In Mimi White’s article “Ideological Analysis and Television,” she makes reference to Antonio Gramsci who was an Italian Marxist that coined the term hegemony “to explain the complex ways in which the dominant class maintains control over society (White, 167).” Basically the concept revolves around how the elite ruling class who dominate a states’ means of ownership and production pull the strings of economics, politics, and ideological constructs in order to allow their views and ideology to become the prevailing normative perspective as to allow them to further their own interests. In the Dockers advertisement campaign the underlying thematic concept that is addressed is castration or rather the male fear of losing your manhood.
Essentially Dockers is pushing their claim that the price of losing your manhood is far more expensive than the cost of a pair of Dockers trousers. They are able to achieve their objective first off through their billboard posters included above in the document on the first page which, as you can see, essentially fills the male body form with what they consider to be concepts that reinforce the dominant perspective of what masculinity should be. This perspective is based on theories on masculinity that have been institutionalized into the general society by popular culture and the interests/powers that be. For example in the billboard posters one of the lines read “ men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny.” This statement conveys an extremely sexist and misogynist stance that somehow if men do not wear Dockers brand khakis then they are incapable of fulfilling the construct of masculinity that every man should strive towards –that without Dockers brand khakis a man will be forever stuck between either the glass ceiling of boyhood that lacks the authority and capability of being a man or suffer from androgyny where an individual is confused about their sexual identity and therefore embodying both masculine and feminine characteristics with an ambiguous sexual identity. Simply put, that unless you wear Dockers brand khakis then as a man you do not fulfill the necessary masculine pre-requisites of being a man.
Furthermore, another dominant hegemonic theory that is also explored in this Dockers advertisement campaign addresses the homophobia or heterosexism that always lurks beneath the subtext of any rant dealing with the loss of masculinity. Whereas femininity or the female sex is essentially the binary opposite of the male gender or masculinity, in the popular culture exposed through the mainstream media being homosexual has always carried the greatest threat of castration. This seems the case because advertisers have always exploited the nuances of sexual/gender differences in order to sell products and reinforce capitalism and therefore have structured masculinity as something primarily defined by lustful desire for the opposite sex. With this being said, in popular culture, being homosexual is the ultimate castration –the farthest possible point from the dominant perspective of masculinity. I think that the thirty-second advertised commercial that appeared during Super Bowl XLIV definitely makes a play on the homophobia dynamic in relation to the underlying theme regarding loss of masculinity.
In the televised commercial the initial shot is of a short and heavy-set man who is without pants and more specifically in his tighty-whitey briefs marching in what appears to be an empty field chanting “I wear no pants!” Next up the program shows another man in close-up shot, this time a very scruffy and unkempt looking man wearing spectacles, who is also chanting the same slogan while marching through the empty field without pants in his tight briefs. As the program unfolds the camera moves back to show an entire gang of gentlemen all chanting the same slogan as they march without pants across the empty field. Although it isn’t explicitly stated anywhere in the program, it is my opinion that these men are structured in the advertisement to reflect a homosexual population that should be the polar opposite of the type of consumer Dockers aims to attract. The first two close-ups introduce us to male figures who, not to discriminate, lack the qualities or characteristics that generally are associated with the perception of masculinity (a tall and sculpted athletic body-form, a strong broad chest, a square jaw, and dreamy eyes). It then seems like a blatant reflection of homosexuality when these two emasculated representations of men are joined together with the rest of the marching group chanting in unison. This is done in order to inspire a sort of deep-rooted animosity towards homosexuality that is at the core of all masculine representation and makes a male viewer desire to distance themselves as far as possible from what is reflected on the screen –the best way to do this being to wear Dockers khakis. Predictably, the next edit in the program slams the image of a man wearing Dockers khakis, who does inherently fit the bill of masculinity, as he stands tall, is athletically built with a sculpted torso and muscular arms. Furthermore, aside from just the homophobic dynamic that causes male viewers to reject the on-screen group they are shown as somewhat animalistic or primitive creatures that have fallen so far from the masculine headstone that they have reverted back to their primal instincts of survival all the while not wearing Dockers khakis.
In conclusion, this new and headstrong marketing campaign by Levi Strauss & Company follows a form of advertising that has been around since the birth of television –that is, appealing to the dominant representations of what masculinity should be in order to sell products to specifically men. Only time will tell whether or not this concept proves to be successful for Dockers, but in the meanwhile much backlash has already arisen from this campaign especially from feminist interest-groups who have banded together in boycotting the Dockers brand claiming homophobia, misogyny, and sexism as the primary reasons for their uproar.
Post with 1 note
A Final Reflection
In hindsight I think that the curriculum that was covered in the past weeks of this media and cultural studies course was what I expected, but also a lot of information was unexpected as well.
I think that what I’m trying to say is that this course covered many topics that I felt I already understood, but it went more in depth in terms of giving me a more solid grounding in how these concepts are more broadly related in the real world to thing like corporate structures, government legislation, and journalistic objectivity. Furthermore, the material presented in this course has really solidified my notions that the media is not just an after-thought in American society but serves an integral purpose in our democratic system.
The facet of the course material that was most eye-opening to me personally was learning about the corporate structure of the major media conglomerates most notably: Disney, Time-Warner, News Corporation, Google, and Viacom. It comes as no surprise that these multi-national companies garner annual revenue figures in the billions of dollars given their omnipotent presence in our lives. However, after analyzing these companies more in-depth is shocking, to say the least, how much influence they really exert in terms of the information that flows through the countless media outlets and into the eyes and ears of the American public.
This omnipotent influence of major media conglomerates is by no means just a coincidence; it is a result of the deregulation of the media industries that dates back to its beginning in the Carter administration. Although the lifting of such rules and regulations in ownership has allowed these corporations to grow uncontrollably and earn humungous profit revenues it has not served in the best interest of the American people and it does not promote the ideal democracy that our nation presents as a front. There are very few outlets that remain open for alternative viewpoints and dissenting opinions and I’ve come to learn that in order for a modern democracy to function properly that clear and unbiased information must be accessible and in demand for everyone.
On the topic of information this allows us to transition into our many discussions about the Internet. It is undoubtedly the catalyst in our generation’s cultural revolution, but it is so much more significant than words can really describe. I have realized that our generation is extremely lucky to be blessed with the gift of advanced information technology and the phenomenon of globalization. With a simple Google search we can obtain a wealth of information on any given topic –with Facebook we can connect ourselves with individuals from all around the globe –we no longer have an excuse to be ignorant of our surroundings. We are in an unprecedented position to educate ourselves and it is up to us to capitalize on the situation and resourcefully utilize such applications to our own benefit.
In closing, if we are to take anything from this course it is to be individual-minded by understanding all the facts comprehensively and thereby reaching your own conclusions. A system of mass media has been institutionalized into our everyday lifestyle including the education system in effect numbing our minds to the facts and injecting into our brain the propaganda that they want us to believe. Therefore classes, homework, and exams are but a minute fraction of what education should encompass because there is even greater wisdom to be obtained from outside of the classroom.
Post with 1 note
The Corporation
Where once we used to shop at our local shop and have bread and milk delivered by the local milkman from the local farms, now we shop in a supermarket that is multinational, eat at fast food restaurants that are everywhere and wear clothes made in the third world by those living in sweatshops. This documentary looks at the Corporation as if it was a person, charting its development, its character and the effects the concept of profit driven corporations has had on the world we live in.
This profit driven nature has grown into many cases of corporate fraud or as referred to in the documentary as the “bad apples,” when in actuality all corporations are in the same game together. A most common name in these discussions comes back to 2001 with the largest corporate bankruptcy in American history with the Enron Corporation scandal and its accounting partner Arthur Andersen. The premise of the scandal was that the corporation used a specialized accounting procedure known as a mark-to-market system. This allowed Enron to apply the projected amount of revenue from a deal as well as future profits onto their accounting books immediately and the company was able to grow exponentially at a double digit percentage each year and have a dominant market capitalization in the American energy industry. Such incredible corporate growth and a solid revenue stream lead Enron to routinely outperform charts and projections put together by analysts making it one of the hottest stocks on Wall St. In the year leading up to the corporate bankruptcy Enron’s principal executives were able to cash in their company stock options many of which were handsomely compensated in the hundreds of millions, when they were supposed to have their stockholders best interests at hand. The accounting fraud and subsequent corporate bankruptcy destroyed stockholders as the stock price plummeted to next-to-nothing and in addition to this thousand of employees were left jobless and were stripped of the benefits ensured to them by Enron as their retirement assets were frozen.
In a more recent case, the prestigious investment bank Goldman Sachs was indicted for misinforming investors who brought subprime mortgages-related securities. These securities were essentially funds created by Goldman itself by bundling together mortgages that have not yet been repaid and allowing outside investors to partake in business with the idea that as long as a majority percentage of these mortgages were paid back. The corporate fraud resulted from Goldman failing to inform these investors that this fund they created for their principal client Paulson & Co. actually had a short position betting against these subprime mortgage securities. In essence Goldman had packaged this deal for their client who was betting on them to fail. Again, stockholders and investors are chewed up and spat out in what seems just another normal case of corporate fraud. The fine levied against Goldman by the SEC was for a paltry $550M dollars which may seem like an abhorrent amount of money, but when put into perspective pales in comparison to the $51.7B is revenue it earned in 2009.
This comes to show that the mass media engages in a perverted practice in building up brands that are successful, in this case American energy corporation Enron and the prestigious banking giant Goldman Sachs, but turn on a dime as soon as they sniff any type of vulnerability taking the offensive in smearing all corporate credibility.
Questioning Journalistic Objectivity
In light of viewing a documentary about the media empire Rupert Murdoch has built with News Corporation, it is quite eye opening to see how objectivity in journalism has seemed to be sacrificed in order to circulate ideas and viewpoints which favor a new brand of partisan politics. Furthermore, news programs today also seem to build their reputation on political commentators and larger than life anchors for the audience to identify with in order to establish somewhat of a personal connection that trumps the need for unbiased reporting and journalistic objectivity.
An example epitomizing how news programming has become all about left and right wing politics is the O’Reilly Factor that is broadcasted on Fox News by news personality Bill O’Reilly. Fox News is a subsidiary of Murdoch’s News Corporation empire and has long been accused of being overtly right-wing conservative while selecting many news stories solely to upset liberals and democrats to in essence prop up the Republican party. More specifically on his talk show, O’Reilly not only exhibits hostility towards guests who disagree with his viewpoints (most of the time left-wing liberals), but also distorts facts in misrepresenting key information in service of his own conservative agenda. O’Reilly’s negative disposition directed towards dissenting viewpoints has a far reaching effect on audiences and in my opinion has made it difficult for individuals to engage in honest and impersonal political debate without being combative and dismissive towards one another.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BAFb97L3KU
Take for example the above Youtube clip showing a snippet of an O’Reilly Factor episode featuring Jeremy Glick. Glick’s father was killed while working port authority during the 9/11 terrorism attacks and was invited on the show to talk about anti-war petition drafted by a group of which he was a member on the advisory board. Glick made sure to prepare himself for his appearance by viewing previous episodes of the O’Reilly Factor featuring hostile guests and using a stopwatch to time how long it took for O’Reilly to intervene and cut them off from speaking. Furthermore, Glick developed a concise statement which would address the main point that he wanted to make; simply that George W. Bush inherited a political legacy from his father George H.W. Bush’s administration that was closely involved and situated with the parties that were responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11th.
Before Glick could even complete his statement we see that O’Reilly is quick to stop this diatribe and immediately label Glick’s viewpoint as “mouthing a far-left position, that is marginal at best.” He then falsely claims that Glick is accusing the US of being a terrorist nation while also refusing to get into a debate about world politics because “I don’t care what you [Glick] think.” After this point in the broadcast O’Reilly demeanor becomes noticeably rude and nasty when repeatedly ordering Glick to “shut his mouth.”
After a commercial-break of the show, reportedly O’Reilly was steaming and the producers of the show were forced to make Glick leave the set because they feared O’Reilly would actually get in serious trouble if they were to come into contact again. The next day’s broadcast finds O’Reilly smearing Glick’s name claiming that he was “spewing hatred for this program and his country using vile propaganda.” O’Reilly distorted the facts by twisting Glick’s words around in stating something that he most definitely was not. This segment is just an isolated example, however it does shed light on how mainstream news talk-shows such as the O’Reilly Factor have lost journalistic integrity due to pushing a personal agenda of politics and viewpoints.
Mass Media & Democracy
Our recent class lectures have ventured into the issue of how today’s mass media does not serve in the best interest of democracy and in actuality is counterproductive in advancing our country’s true ideals. We learned that since the Carter Administration the United States has pushed for major legislation to lift the anti-trust regulations against corporate consolidation in the media industry. This phenomenon has gave birth to multi-national media conglomerates such as News Corporation, Disney, Time-Warner, and Viacom which control all the major outlets of media ranging from print publishing, radio, television, film production, and internet.
The consolidation of the corporate media structure has resulted in less viewpoints and perspectives in mass circulation as the higher-ups choose only to address the issues which may advance the mission of their own personal agendas. This presents a major problem to our society because an ideal democracy is only able to function in accordance with a mass media system with a free-flow of uncensored information in order to allow each individual to have a choice and their own view on any given topic. Furthermore, the more important question at hand is no longer what the problem is with our mass media, but what solutions can be implemented in order to address the shortcomings that the currently flawed mass media has allowed for.
In illustrating the vast influence that today’s media companies possess, media tycoon Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation started after he inherited two Australian newspaper companies from his father, but has since grown into the world’s second largest media conglomerate with considerable control in the Asian, British, and worldwide markets. All under News Corp’s corporate umbrella are leading corporations in the television industry, cable programming, radio networks, movie production studios, newspaper companies, publishing houses, and Internet startups.
For example a News Corp. subsidiary Fox News is one of the elite cable news programming networks commanding millions of viewers. In a documentary showed during lecture it examines how the views of the corporate higher-ups routinely are permeated into news broadcasts while many unfavorable issues are disregarded and do not receive any airtime. This partisan network broadcasting has come under repeated scrutiny and was highlighted with the network’s apparent support for the controversial Bush Administration and its policies regarding the War on Terror. It would not be a stretch of the imagination to claim that these partisan viewpoints and opinions would most definitely be circulated through the countless media outlets ranging from newspapers to movie productions which all lie under Rupert Murdoch’s corporate hierarchy.
However, now that the complexity of the problem has been addressed it seems appropriate that some sort of solution be implemented, but the solution to these problems seem to be just as puzzling as the problem itself. One answer that would address the combat the hegemony of information in the mass media would be to enact legislation similar to the Sherman Anti-trust act which effectively ended the monopoly of the oil and tobacco industry of Rockefeller’s Standard Oil and the American Tobacco Company respectively. However, the drafting of such legislation would be even more complex due to the fact that global media corporations exist in various differing industries compared to the latter monopolies that dominated only one industry. Therefore, the solution would be to restrict corporations from controlling companies in more than one industry of mass media,; for example a newspaper company would be legally barred from controlling a movie production studio or television network.
Although this suggestion seems rather impossible given our capitalistic corporate environment, it is the only solution that would ensure that our nation’s democratic ideals are not lost to the hegemony of ideas pushed by the mass media today.
Post with 1 note
Internet Commercialization & 2010 NBA Free-Agency
Our major topic of discussion during the week’s lectures involved the commercialization of the Internet as a commodity. The web has become the choice outlet in terms of targeting specific niche audiences to generate the buzz of a larger viewership base and in turn creating a greater profit stream through advertising revenues and things of that nature.
Take for example the current media frenzy surrounding this 2010 off-season of the National Basketball Association. Due to a restructuring in how legal representatives now negotiate player’s contracts, the leverage has shifted from the professional organizations to the professional players in terms of dictating the behavior of this current off-season. Another factor being covered religiously by the media deals with the inability by the association of coming to terms with the player’s association in agreeing to a new collective bargaining agreement. This agreement basically outlines exactly how the league’s total revenue will be divided up between the team owners and the players, and unless an agreement is reached the conclusion is that essentially nobody will be paid a dime. If this were to occur then the league will ultimately result in a lockout similar to the 1997-1998 situation in which the season was cut short as the two sides could not come to a definitive collective bargaining agreement.
This insane media-frenzy is highlighted by the coverage on Lebron James, the single most coveted player in this off-season’s greatest free-agent class in NBA history. The associated press has so closely scrutinized his destination team for the next season that it even seemed to eclipse the coverage of the NBA Finals series between the two storied franchises Los Angeles Lakers and Boston Celtics. This close media broadcasting exemplifies the theory behind the vertical consolidation of the media network industry being that all outlets are being worked to their full potential in terms of appealing to the largest possible audience conceivable.
Firstly, the media made absolutely sure to informing interested sports viewers of the situation that would be coming up shortly prior to this summer. Almost every time that I flipped to the ESPN channel on television their broadcast would never fail in offering a periodical report on the looming free-agency class and more specifically how Lebron James would fit into the entire puzzle. Analysts and coaches on the televised sports programs would be invited on the air as to provide viewers with their opinion on the best or most strategic destination that Lebron should choose.
Secondly, ESPN’s online website would feature a never-ending stream of articles and commentary pieces from sports writers essentially exploring the same idea; the best possible or most strategic location for Lebron to play for next season. Similarly, analysts would post periodically written blogs and such discussing with potential suitors for Lebron and posting up to date activity on all things regarding the free-agency period.
Lastly, free-agent players utilized the social networking site Twitter as a means to communicate their activities and thoughts to their fan base. This off-season NBA free agency period, albeit a quite specific example, does illustrate to an extent which media conglomerates have utilized the theory of vertical integration in order to broadcast media coverage to the broadest audience base possible.
Google, Censorship, and Chinese Nationalism
During this week’s discussion section our group discussed how censorship policies in China are motivated by a hope to bolster a strong sense of nationalism. This has been highlighted recently with the media’s close coverage on the situation that Google is currently involved in with the Chinese government dealing with blocking sensitive information from being viewed on the Internet. Their government is so serious about blocking access to this type of information that they instituted a program which would force computer manufacturing companies to install a type of software/hardware that would in effect block access to anything they deem to be worthy. In reality these measures are counter-productive and do not achieve their goal of preserving national pride amongst their population; in actuality it is a ploy for the Chinese government to retain their power and control over their people. However, the true way to create legitimate pride and nationalism would be allow unrestricted access to all forms of information, allowing their citizens to educate themselves of the facts. This would increase their exposure not only to China’s great achievements in history, but also to learn from the fatal missteps that have taken so they do not repeat past mistakes from their experiences.
Exemplifying this perspective, America despite being the pre-dominant world hegemony has endured its fair share of horrendous choices and fatal mistakes during times of conflict and times of prosperity. Their use of nuclear firepower against the Japanese and chemical warfare during combat in Vietnam are unacceptable acts of cruelty lacking any regard or respect for human life. It may just be a fabricated stance through the mass media, but it does at least appear that America is currently at the forefront in promoting nuclear disarmament as well as outlawing the use of chemical weaponry during wartime conflict with enemy nations.
The hypocrisy of America being the first and only nation to deploy such weapons and then subsequently set guidelines that prohibit their use by anyone else is quite evident. However, the fact of the matter is our nation has at the very least acknowledged their wrongdoing in these historical events allowing our citizens do conduct their own due diligence in order to learn from these mistakes as to ensuring that we do not repeat these significant errs in judgment.
It is rarely the case that a corporation’s motivation to increase their revenue stream would go hand-in-hand with the common good of all people. However, that seems to be exactly the case that Google finds itself in with its tumultuous situation with the Chinese government. Faced with the decision to either abide by Chinese censorship policies or lose the most profitable market for their internet search engine given China’s humungous population of nearly 2B strong, Google held steadfast to their informal corporate motto which states “don’t be evil.”
Post with 2 notes
PostModern Interaction: A Disconnected Narrative
As a collective group of college students and burgeoning young professionals entering the marketplace we are known as Generation Y or the Millennial Generation. Most commonly characterized by our increased use and familiarity with communications, media, and other forms of digital technology; we have learned to utilize the countless tools at our disposal in order to become as resourceful as we are diverse. But the sobering reality is our predicament is not entirely positive given that we are the only generation to inherit our nation in significant state of decline. However an ailing economy is not the only problem that our society faces in the tumultuous journey that lies ahead. With the meteoric surge of technology and social networking, an established trend towards career specialization, and a loss of storytelling dynamic in favor of padding bottom-line profits our society seems to have lost what it means to connect with other individuals through personal interaction growing more disconnected with each passing day.
One of my favorite filmmakers is Michael Mann who collaborated recently with Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx on the feature film titled Collateral. In the film Foxx plays a cab driver that finds himself hostage of an engaging contract killer (Cruise) who makes his rounds from hit to hit during one night in Los Angeles. In one particularly resonating scene inside during the cab ride Cruise speaks to Foxx’s character about the city saying
“Whenever I’m here I can’t wait to leave. Its too sprawled out, disconnected. Seventeen million people here and the fifth largest economy in the world and nobody knows each other. I read about this guy who gets on the MTA here, dies. Six hours he’s riding the subway before anybody notices his corpse doing laps around L.A., people on and off sitting next to him. Nobody notices.”
Although this quote is from a romanticized Hollywood film, the overlying theme of the story explains how in today’s society people lack personal interaction with other individuals. This is quite interesting because the Internet and social networking sites have created what seems to be a closely connected global society; with the click of a button we can chat and communicate with people from other countries and across the globe. However, this is a stark juxtaposition to reality where individuals no longer seem to genuinely interact with one another rather going about our everyday lives without giving much thought to others in our proximity.
Another feature film from director Michael Mann that really struck a chord with me was a crime drama titled Heat. In the film Robert De Niro plays a professional robber named “Neil McCauley,” who is a calm, methodical loner and an introvert, while Al Pacino plays “Vincent Hanna,” a veteran LAPD homicide detective whose devotion to his job leads to a doomed marriage that is collapsing around him. In the film Hanna’s wife Justine quotes
“You don’t live with me, you live among the remains of dead people. You sift through the detritus, you read the terrain, you search for signs of passing, for the scent of your prey, and then you hunt them down. That’s the only thing you’re committed to. The rest is the mess you leave as you pass through.”
The basic theme of the film explores how individuals become so engrossed with excelling in their careers that they allow that devotion to override concerns that they may have with maintaining relationships with family and loved ones. This theory reins even truer now, given our horrendous economic climate, where everyone must clamor and grind in order to at the very least obtain the type of job position that we desire. Furthermore, our education system today seems to be lacking in terms of teaching students to think critically and learn valuable material. We no longer obtain a well rounded education with a good understanding in all facets of our world which helps us to think critically about our future instead our education system seems to just be a rung on the ladder in funneling graduates into the marketplace in specialized professions such as business, or medicine, or law.
The Sleeper Curve, Media Convergence, and House M.D.
One of today’s most popularly viewed television series is Fox Network’s House M.D. Originally created by producer David Shore, the show follows Dr. Gregory House a world-renowned diagnostician who practices medicine at the prestigious Princeton Plainsboro Teaching Hospital. This show is unique in a sea of televised programs because it follows a continuous overall story line, but finds the characters in a new situation with every program. In each episode House and his elite team of doctors are assigned a particular patient with a perplexing array of symptoms and circumstances that other hospitals and practitioners have been unable to diagnose. In a great triumph of modern intertextuality the show pays homage to a Sherlock Holmes type of investigative detection as the doctors employ all the resources at their disposal, medically or otherwise, in order to reach a conclusive diagnosis for each patient. In addition to exemplifying how media convergence has reshaped the ways in which consumers experience modern entertainment and televised programming, House M.D. also strengthens Steven Johnson’s Sleeper Curve theory of mass media and its positive effect on mainstream audiences.
Steven Johnson’s “Sleeper Curve” theory of mass media claims that today’s popular culture is indeed making us smarter. He quotes, “for decades, we’ve worked under the assumption that mass culture follows a path declining steadily toward lowest-common denominator standards, presumably because the masses want dumb, simple pleasures and big media companies try to give the masses what they want. But, the exact opposite is happening: the culture is getting more cognitively demanding, not less.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvTFc5uCx5g&feature=related
The link posted above is a Youtube video of a short segment from an episode of House M.D. House and his team are engaging in what is called a differential diagnosis, as they break down and analyze brain x-ray prints of their patient. Each of the team members offers a diagnosis and their own theory combining the patient’s symptoms, circumstances, with the medical materials at hand. As each individual bounces ideas off one another they eliminate certain diagnoses either because symptoms are absent or because they indicate something else entirely, or they are able to confirm other diagnoses given the circumstances of the case. After concluding the differential with a diagnosis that they deem a good fit for the symptoms; certain team members are either assigned to confirm the diagnosis through specific medical tests or to begin treating the patient through antibiotics or whatever other method that is necessary.
Johnson’s theory holds true when analyzing House M.D. in that following the plot complications of this series provides viewers with a glimpse into the medical process that entails diagnosing a patient with an illness or whatever may be. Although by no stretch of my imagination am I claiming that watching House M.D. will groom my skills in becoming America’s next prodigy diagnostician, however it does provide a shallow introduction into how these doctors approach each patient’s case in terms of diagnosing the symptoms, how to confirm diagnoses through medical tests, and lastly the various options for treatment necessary for the patient to get better.
http://www.politedissent.com/house_pd.html
http://www.facebook.com/pages/House-MD/112586268755292?ref=ts
The two links posted above are prime examples of how media convergence has allowed fans of this television series to enhance their shared enthusiasm for House M.D. This first link is a website that summarizes the plot from each episode and reviews the medical accuracy presented. Furthermore, users post their own comments and responses to the website’s review allowing for real interaction between individuals of this common interest group. The second link is a Facebook page dedicated to House M.D. that brings together users from the online community allowing them to post comments to the wall and access posts and other resources that are related to the show.
