Any Way You Want, Thats The Way You Get it... thanks to Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality

    The way the internet is works today is that everyone is connected to one another on the same level playing field. Same level playing field referring to a concept about fairness  under which everyone plays by the same set of 'rules'. But a handful of phone and cable companies want to change all of that, they want to lock down parts of the web. And make sites pay more money for them to use it, while the rest of the sites get the 'slow lane'. How will they do that. By destroying on the Internets founding principles; net neutrality.
    So let us start from the beginning. You connect to the web through a series of pipes owned by telephone and cable companies. The deal is they are not allowed to alter what is inside those pipes. Whether it is Yahoo or Google, everybody's website gets the same speed and quality. No matter who you are, or what service provider you use, your access to sites is exactly the same.  This idea of fairness and security is what we refer to as net neutrality.
    Well the problem is companies want to reserve a restricted 'fast lane' on the Internet. But only for their partners and services. Only sites that pay a substantial fee would be allowed to use it., making the companies gatekeepers. This would eliminate this concept of net neutrality. Big companies, for example AT and T and Bell, will use their power to control your internet connections by degrading or block access to other providers. The internet is known as “content that is streamed to the user when the user demands” [1] but is slowly losing that meaning as net neutrality becomes a more serious issue day after day. Internet providers could control what is seen, instead of allowing users to browse and share freely. In effect, also stopping the spread of knowledge from one person to another, which is key to human interaction. By stopping the spread of knowledge, service providers essentially relegate the internet to a kind of “second television”, where they control the message.
    This leads me to question society’s right to freedom. Net neutrality eliminates the democratization of technology, because individuals will no longer be able to afford the information being disseminated over the Internet. Major media corporations become the leaders of our society, without considering the needs and wants of the citizens. Democracy is neglected in exchange for commerce and financial status. Hegemony is demonstrated accurately, as wealthy corporate giants and ISPs express their leadership by controlling the Internet.
    It would appear though as the biggest concern here is money. In order to get business from the consumer, they would go as far blocking certain content. Forcing the consumer to bring their business straight to them. Companies love money in their pocket, greed is key  Unfortunately, it would appear though as the folks at congress do not think this important to put this into law. So until then I'm going to enjoy my internet freedom.

* If you are still able to read this then net neutrality is still in effect.*

Work Cited
[1] Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down
Culture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin, 2004.

Rogers, We Have Lift Off

Media/Hegemony

     As I look at my HBC rewards card, I realize that it can be used at a number of stores owned by the Hudson’s Bay Company. At the plaza at which I work, there used to be a Home Outfitters, which was owned by HBC. Unfortunately, the store closed and was replaced by a SportChek, a subsidiary of The Forzani Group Ltd. The plaza also has a Mark’s Work Warehouse, but my rewards card does not work there because the store is no longer owned by HBC, but by Canadian Tire, another business conglomerate. As I begin to realize that all the stores at my plaza are owned by huge business I begin to question what was going on? In researching various stores, I began to realize that they were all owned by a small number of major corporations.

     In the same manner almost all retail chains are owned by huge corporations, there is also a concentration of ownership with various media outlets and technologies. When I think of Rogers Communications, for example, I immediately think of telephones. A corporation that provides the public with the ability to communicate with one another via cell phone or telephone. Little did I know,  Rogers Communications is an enormous corporation with an alarming amount of power.

They own telephone companies, radio and cable station, television networks, publishing companies, and sports teams. You can not go anywhere in Canada without seeing the Rogers emblem being displayed on something. Check out this awesome site to see a long list of Roger Communications holdings. (http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=rogers )

     The idea of all these companies trying to make it to the top has to do with the 'rip, mix and burn' theory proposed by Lessig.[1] Companies know what the public wants. The only thing that determines the difference is the way of delivering their findings. They rip the culture around them, mix their ideas into something new and creative, then burn it into the culture the best they can.          

     To give you an example of how much power Rogers has lets go through a quick run down of how Rogers is ingrained in many aspects of my life. I recently saw my parent’s bills for things such as telephone, internet, and cable. I expected to see three different bills from three different companies. Nope, it all came in one nice package, marked with the Rogers emblem at the top right of the bill. After looking at the bill, I go to relax and watch television.  I began to watch SportsNet to see how the local baseball team did. The reporter announced, “Next on Rogers’ SportsNet, we see how the Toronto Blue Jays faired against the Yankees as the battled it out at the Rogers Centre” AHHHHHH! You will always be known as the SkyDome in my heart. Okay, no problem. I'll call my friend on my cell phone to discuss how Rogers dominates my life. Upon turning on my cell phone, the Rogers symbol appears as the phone boots up. At that point, I had to admit there was no escaping from Rogers, the large corporation. 

     While, there may not appear to be any harm with large corporations controlling many media outlets. However, I think it is difficult to find objective, unbiased news when the majority of publications and broadcasts in our society are owned by a select few media moguls. For example, on CityTv the often promote and show commercials for the radio station CHIFI.   However, the average viewer may not realize that CityTv and CHFI are owned by the same parent company.  Thus, parents companies can utilize a variety of its assists to serve their best interests. This results in the fabrication of culture by major media companies.

     Another problem with a concentration of ownership, is the fact that most of our information is coming from one source, and there is no room for diversity from other sources. We believe that we have all these different sources of media that offer us semi-objective facts. However, what’s really happening is that we do have a variety of media sources, but they are all owned by a relatively small number of large media companies and this enables them to put their messages out over a variety of media sources, promoting their messages and ideas even further. I don’t think that cross-media ownership is beneficial to the public because we are lead to believe that we are receiving a variety of viewpoints in the media but, really, we are only receiving a select few, over and over again.

Work Cited

[1]  Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture. New York: Penguin (Non-Classics), 2005. 24.

Buy Nothing Today, Buy it Tomorrow Instead.

Buy Nothing Day

“There’s only one way to avoid the collapse of this human experiment of ours on Planet Earth: we have to consume less.”

     Buy Nothing Day is an anti-consumerism day perpetuated by social activists all around the world. Typically held the Friday after the American Thanksgiving, the event seeks to bring national awareness to over-consumption and advocate for practices of material conservation. To achieve such a goal, the group calls for a boycott of any material consumption for 24 hours.  They also recommend that participates be environmental conscious and turn off any non-essential appliances or amenities for the day.

     While the event is noble in its cause, its long term impacts on the population’s consumer habits is questionable. On Buy Nothing Day, individuals do not buy anything, and simply go cold turkey. They cut up your credit cards and hide their money. Essentially, they go on a consumer fast. However, when the clock hits 12 am, individuals will likely celebrate by going out and shopping. Wait that is not right? It would appear in modern society, one which is rooted in material consumption, any attempt to forever change people’s purchasing habits is helpless.
     But who is to blame for society’s inability to conserve their purchase and not over-consume?  Can the finger be pointed at advertising companies?   Advertising companies are always trying to convince individuals to buy the latest and new products. Nevertheless, we control our actions, so to solely blame advertising companies is unfair. That is like society blaming McDonalds for the nation’s obesity problem. Advertisements may play a small role in over consumption but it is ultimately the consumer who has control over their actions.

     Buy Nothing Day, in my opinion, is about resisting planned and perceived obsolescence. As a society, we consume much more than we need. We are bombarded with advertisements and messages from big businesses, which drive us to consume more and more. We believe that we need to keep up with the trends, buy what is currently popular and continuously replace the things we already have with things that are newer and better. By participating in Buy Nothing Day, individuals may not change their consumption patterns but perhaps by having individuals reflect on their daily habits, they may begin to see the broader picture.  They will begin to realize, even if it is for a split second, they need to change their consumer habits and begin to rethink the purchases they make.  If Buy Nothing Day can accomplish such as task, then perhaps one day we can achieve positive change.

Global Village: A Not To Distant Future

Theory/ Praxis

    Marshall McLuhan, a fixture in media discourse, was interviewed by Eric Norden for Playboy Magazine. In the interview, McLuhan discussed several theories surrounding the media and media technologies. One of McLuhan’s more compelling theories revolved around a term he coined himself, the “global village.”  McLuhan’s detailed description of the “global village,” conjures images of our current reality, almost forty years prior to its existence:

“The transformations are taking place everywhere around us. The cities, corporate extensions of our physical organs, are withering and being translated along with all other such extensions into information systems, as television and the jet — by compressing time and space — make all the world one village and destroy the old city-country dichotomy. New York, Chicago, Los Angeles — all will disappear like the dinosaur. The electric media will create a world of dropouts from the old fragmented society, with its neatly compartmentalized analytic functions, and cause people to drop in to the new integrated global-village community”. [1]

    When McLuhan first conceptualized the idea of a “global village,” the world was a different place.   Information was largely limited to its own geographic location. With the invention of the printing press, and later photographs, feelings of time and space began to compress. Such feelings were intensified with the invention of the telephone, television, and improved air travel. However there was no particular medium that was as instantaneous, convenient, and expansive as that of the Internet.
    On the Internet, physical distance was no longer a barrier to the real-time communication.  Thus, social spheres were greatly expanded by the openness of the web. The ease at which people could search for online communities and interact with others that share the same interests was unimaginable. In a matter of a few years, the Internet has consolidated itself as a very powerful platform that has changed the way we do business, and the way we communicate. The Internet has become the universal source of information for millions of people, at home, at school, and at work. E-mail enables us to bypass the time delay of letters and send texts directly to the person in seconds. Instant messengers are free compared to the telephone and you can have more than one conversation at once. Video messaging eliminates the need to travel, as you can see anyone around the world from the comfort of your home. 

     I can communicate with my relatives form South American all with a simple click. Therefore, this technology supports the idea of an amalgamate, yet unified global community.  However, the great divider that stands in the way of a truly global society is fact that there are many different languages spoken in our planet Earth. So one day when we create one universal language, will this term global village be in  full effect. One day...

Work Cited
[1] “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Heim.ifi.uio.no. Playboy, Mar. 1969. Web. 07 Oct. 2009. http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/links/mcluhan/pb.html.

Shaving Is for Suckers- MOvember

Activist projec

     Recently, there has been an increase in the number of men sporting beards in the city of Toronto. And no, the economy is not to blame why people have started to penny pinch and not purchase shaving razors. Men everywhere are growing beards in support of Movember, No Shave November. Movember is a month long event where men do not shave  in order to raise awareness about prostate cancer. The event began in Australia five years ago, when a few men joked about 80's fashion and discussed about bringing back the moustache. The men then thought it would be a good idea to use their moustaches to serve a greater purpose and  raise money for prostate cancer research. With this, the moustache  became a symbol for prostate cancer, in the same fashion the pink ribbon became the symbol for breast cancer.

    To begin the event, men start off the month clean shaven. They then have the rest of the month to grow there “mo”, Australian slang for moustache, while raising awareness for prostate cancer and collecting donations from friends and family. The “mo bro”, someone who participates in Movember, thus becomes a walking billboard and advocate for prostate cancer.  

    Movember is unique in comparison to other charities because it focuses on a men's health issue. It also utilizes something simple as growing a moustache and turns it into something very powerful. In 2008, the Movember campaign in Canada raised $2.4 million.  Thus, making it the largest charity event for men.

    I love the idea of Movember because as well as supporting a great cause, you get to have fun along the way. Men get creative in the styles in which they shape there moustaches. Hopefully, the awareness against Men's health issues has grown significantly since the creation of Movember. So as our moustaches continue to grow, so will our awareness.

    So the question now becomes for me will I take the plunge and participate in Movember. The answer is yes. Unfortunately, I was blessed with my mother’s genes. My inability to grow facial hinr has hindered my performance and not allowed me to participate in Movember. However, if you look closely, I am certain that you will be able to see some facial hair growing.  Maybe I should not shave for an extended period of time, perhaps a year, to make for my lack of hair growing. Just a thought.

                                 
I made a sketch of what i would look like with facial hair.
There is probably a connection between recent drop in shaving cream sales and Movember, hmmmmm....

Work Cited 

"Movember Canada - About". Movember Canada Official Website. Movember Canada, 2009. Web. 22 Nov. 2009. http://www.ca.movember.com/about/.

Starving for Attention...Won't Somebody Please Look at Me!

Culture Jamming

     Culture jamming is a hard term to grasp at first, even though we are surrounded by it everyday. We see it on billboards, street signs, in emails, and even in videos. Cultural jamming is when billboards and advertisements attempt to counter hegemonic culture by commenting on the media itself or issues in greater society. Within in our society, individuals are exposed to thousands of corporate ads each day. Cultural jamming advertisements, for example, may mock the original advertisement done by the company, while at the same time communicating myths or truths about the product or media itself.

Culture jamming is thus the practice of fighting back against the corporate advertisers and offers an alternative medium for individuals to voice an opinion about anti-corporation, anti-consumer, anti- materialism and overall anti-advertising.
     Culture jamming often focuses on issues within society, and does so in a playful manner. Such advertisements are often satirical about a wide range of topics and poke fun at little stupid things, as well as expose big names in a comical way. Ultimately, they make us rethink reality and highlight problems with our culture.

     For example, I choose a 'Buffalo David Bitton' advertisement. The original advertisement displays a woman dressed in Buffalo clothing. It is a simple black and white advertisement who’s main purpose is to display and the sell the clothing. Within the advertisement, an area of discussion is how astonishingly thin the woman appears. A 'Jammer' appropriately placed a sticker right on her head reading the message, 'starving for attention'. “If the words lock in the “meaning” of a sequence, then the pictures can really take off”.[1] A simple statement as 'starving for attention' is able to take the picture to another level. The picture is presented with a new and effective message.
      This is a direct message towards women who face dissatisfaction wi0th their bodies. Women, who are constantly being told to improve their appearance and advertised by our culture unhealthy eating portions, the ’Jammer’ advertises that it is alright to not be as thin as the model.
     As a male, I can honestly say that being extremely thin is not attractive. However, advertisements showcase unnatural body sizes that put the idea in woman's mind that this is what attractive looks like. Nevertheless, with a simple phrase the Jammer was able to alter the message of the advertisement and at the same time criticize social norm.
      As stated by Lessig, “creative work has value”[2] and culture jammers take these pre-made works, and add some kind of flare to it, giving it that imaginative touch”. In the case of the Buffalo advertisement, the Jammer has creatively turned a clothing advertisement into a social commentary about women and the unrealistic standards portrayed by the media..

Work Cited

[1] McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics. Print. 159. New York: Harper Collins, 1994.
[2] Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down
Culture and Control Creativity. Print. 18. New York: Penguin, 2004.

McLuhan You Genius Son of a Gun

Since this is a media course, I am going to use a media resource to decipher the definition of 'Mass Media'.  According to Oxford Dictionary, “Mass media denotes a section of the media specifically designed to reach a very large audience such as the population of a nation state”. Okay so  I used the dictionary through an online source, but I still technically used the dictionary. That is as simple as a definition can get. Good thing I was able to understand every word out of that definition. Well that mean mass media refers to all communications that are provided for a large amount of people. This is by any medium; television, radio, internet, and newspapers being the most common. Media can be projected through words, pictures, sounds and just about any other way that is deemed communicative. Simple and straight to the point.

    Marshall McLuhan has coined a lot of theories to this term of mass media, all of them being relatable. His theory on the medium is the massage has played a large role in the understanding of mass media. “It is the participatory nature of the TV experience itself that is important, rather than the content of the particular TV image that is being invisibly and indelibly inscribed on our skins.” [1]In a nut shell he is saying that medium itself that is 'massaging' our senses and thus affecting us as a whole.
However many of us are unaware of the role mass media plays in their lives until they are disconnected from it. For example if someone was to in a completely remote part of the world without technology, they are simply at peace with the universe. But knowing Western society, this person would not last long. Even putting myself in this situation, I know that about 2 days into this experience, I would go officially insane. Oddly similar to the plot of Stephen King's The Shining. Except their is no mind controlling hotels, but you get the point.
    This revolves around McLuhan theory of  Narcissus Narcosis. “A man remains as unaware of the psychic and social effects of his new technology as a fish of the water it swims in...we create invisible environments.”[2] That we are simply insignificant fishes swimming around in this giant sea of media. Only once beached are we able to realize that we have been swimming in water. But is this metaphoric water doing us any good.
    Well that all depends on what your viewpoints on media. 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. This was known as the “rear-view mirror” theory.[3] 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.
    This is all coming from a man who died half a century ago. The fact that what he said is relatable during this century says a lot. That there appears to be a pattern, which is something that we could ultimately change. However, it is up to the 'artist' to drive us there. Too bad I do not have my license yet.

Work Cited

[1] “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Heim.ifi.uio.no. Playboy, Mar. 1969. Web. 07 Oct. 2009. http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/links/mcluhan/pb.html.
[2] McLuhan, Marshall. Playboy Interview
[3] McLuhan, Marshall. Playboy Interview

"Today's Top Story, Is Anything I'm Saying Actually True?"

“Report: Al-Qaeda Allegedly Engaging In Telemarketing”, this is an example of just one of the many satirical articles that can be on Onion News Website. News satire, also called fake news or mock news, is a type of parody presented in a format typical of mainstream journalism, and called a satire because of its content. News satire has been around almost as long as journalism itself, but it is particularly popular on the web, where it is relatively easy to mimic a credible news source and stories may achieve wide distribution from nearly any site. Generally, the goal of news satire is to make social commentary in a form that provides entertainment. Because news satire relies heavily on irony and deadpan humour, it is occasionally mistaken for real news.
    One of the biggest organization of satirical news , in my opinion, is the Onion News. The popular Peabody Award-winning fake news organization does it best, with well-written articles and even its own astonishingly genuine-looking video broadcasts as the Onion News Network. I once watched a whole segment of the Onion news and I believed every word of it. This was of course before I found out it was not real. That day my dreams were broken.
    "The Onion" features articles satirizing the news in every way imaginable. This paper is presented in a professional manner and has, in the past, been cited by serious news stations mistaking information to be true. This was a problem and began the wave of twisting the news to something it was not intended to be: fake. Some of the not as newsworthy television shows include: The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, The Colbert Report with Stephen Colbert and “Weekend Update” a segment as part of SNL.

Small Excerpt From SNL's Weekend Update

    But to what extent can these people be considered journalists. Journalists are never supposed to take side in an argument or story. They are demanded to remain unbiased for the sake of the story. However these segments appears to be completely one sided with certain issues. These shows leave the youth population with the wrong idea of what news is and how news was meant to be presented.
    However I love these shows. I watch the Colbert Report relatively every day and I always catch the Weekend Update on YouTube. In class, we learned, “We are not born perceiving. We learn to perceive and not to perceive.” [1] A lot of people have no standpoint on political issues, neither left nor right but fake news analyses a politician’s background as oppose to the anchors viewpoint. These shows demonstrate an excessive amount of creativity and in the long run these people show a deep understanding of what is going on around them. This is what allows them to be so one-sided. They are given the freedom to say what they want and they use this power to their advantage. Satirical news downplays the seriousness of news in the form of entertainment with humour based on irony. This is why shows like the Colbert Report and The Onion News are so important in the world of journalism.
    While these shows in most cases provide great entertainment, I would hope that no one gets their sources from Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert and trust what there saying is true. When looking for serious news stories, coverage of national events, in depth analysis on politician's views, etcetera, a local news program or one of the national news networks is the way to go. Whether the truth is twisted a bit, or if stories are to one sided, satirical news is here to stay. And I kind of like it that. Makes a world a little bit brighter.

Work Cited

[1] "Report: Al-Qaeda Allegedly Engaging In Telemarketing." Onion News 38 (2009): n. pag. Web. 13 Oct 2009. .
[2]Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 2008.

Save Me Master Chief

One Shot!
Top Gold!
Triple Kill!

    Welcome to the world of online gaming. But I am not talking about games like World of Craft or Warcraft. I am referring to the Halo series,  the critically acclaimed series which is the main cause for the success of Microsoft's Xbox. However a lot of its success it driven by its online capabilities via Xbox Lives and the creation of MLG (Major League Gaming)
    Xbox Live is an online multiplayer gaming and digital media delivery service created and operated by Microsoft Corporation. It was first made available to the Xbox system in 2002. As well as allowing players to compete against each other, it also allows subscribers to chat, buy arcade games via the marketplace. In retrospect it is a giant social networking program, in which all the users have one thing in common, playing Xbox.
    So now let me describe to you the game of Halo. It is a FPS (first person shooter) game, which revolves around the central character Master Chief. And to be honest to you, that is all I really know about the storyline. This is because they have made the story hard to follow and to understand a lot requires one to read the books. So your probably thinking to yourself, why are you playing the game if you don't even know what is going on? That is a good question but the answer is simple; the online aspect of the game is highly addicting.
    What I am about to tell you might shock you but this is why I warn you advance. Halo's success is driven by the highly prosperous league MLG. Major League Gaming (MLG), founded in 2002, is a North American professional video game league, headquartered in New York City, New York. MLG has held official video game tournaments throughout the United States and Canada. Major League Gaming competitions have been broadcast on national television.[1] These broadcasted appear on channels like ESPN and TSN. That is correct, they are broadcasted on channels dedicated to sports. Does that in turn make this  a sport. Well, the tournaments consists of teams of 4 competing in various game variants; Capture the Flag, Oddball, Slayer and so forth. They go through a round robin and then through 'playoffs' by which winners are determined by a 'best of 5' game style. The guys in these tournaments are considered 'professionals' and all go by an alias. They come up with different strategies and play accoridngly. So I guess this is the closest that a video game can ever get to be considered a sport. Not to shabby might I add.

Example of Gameplay at MLG Tournaments


    Wait a minute, hold it their cowboy. How does this relate to me? Simple, I was once very ambitious of making it into MLG. I got into the game in grade 6 but only started playing the online aspect of the game in grade 10. I immediately fell in love the online play. I quickly devolped as a player and realized my potential. Most people reading this are probably rolling their eyes and thinking what a waste of time. Well actually, I had an active social life and constantly kept up with my school work. My skills as a player was recognized by one of the guys at school. He introduced me to a lot of guys that shared the same level of skill. And to quote the movie Casablanca, “ I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship”. We practiced, we played on a regular basis and we went to local tournaments. All with the ambition of going to MLG.
    This lasted for about a year. Prior to grade 12, I soon realized that I was not cut out for this. These guys played every day, dedicated their lives this. I just wanted to play fun, they slowly took what was fun and turned it into something competitive and frustrating. This was not the path I wanted to go down. My priorities are a lot different than the guys I played with. I had different aspirations and gaming was not going to help me get their. Although 'competitive' gaming is no longer a large portion of my life, I still like to play. As a gaming is a large part of who I am.  Video games are a medium which now allows people to escape to a perfected reality. Chuck Klosterman expresses this perfectly in his book Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs, in the chapter in which he describes the game of Sims. He explains that the people use the Sims to create characters of themselves and make them do things that they would never do in real life.[2] Kind of like a real world simulation. I believe that our society will never stop some escape from the real world. This is not because  people dissatisfied with their current lives, but instead they carve something completely different. They strive for excitement and a break from the normal. And that is exactly what I am doing

And for those who want to play some XBOX Live let me know, and we'll see if your any good :o.


Work Cited

[1] "About MLG Gaming." 2009. Major League Gaming, Web. 13 Oct 2009. . 
[2] Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs. New York: Scribner, 2004.

I Know What I Want For Christmas

  

     This advertisement is taken from Tom Ford’s ad campaign for his men's cologne. Ford is known for using blatant sexuality and nakedness in his campaigns and he often appears in his ads completely naked. Tom Ford's latest cologne ad might be considered a little crude, but the sexy advertising technique is certainly proving effective.  This ad is getting a lot of attention for the provocative image of a woman grabbing her unnaturally (definitely unnatural) round, full breasts with her perfectly manicured hands. She presses them together to show off a bottle of Tom Ford for Men Fragrance in her cleavage. If that were not enough, the lubed-up woman has her bright red lips parted wide to suggest some form of shock or to suggest something rather sexual.
    However, he sends his most blatant message upfront; capitalizing on the fact that sex always sells. "Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at... The surveyor of woman in herself is male: the surveyed female. Thus she turns herself into an object - and most particularly an object of vision: a sight"[1]. This definitely, unabashedly being marketed to straight men. This woman in this picture see herself as a 'sight', which is why she is so comfortable presenting herself in such fashion. She is what they would call the 'perfect girl' by most guys. But realistically this is not how woman look and this is not something woman should be aiming for.
    Aside from the fact that this one more thing pushing the boundaries in decency just a little bit farther. I do not find this any more shocking than the explicit material you can find published practically anywhere. Bus stops, magazines, billboards, television commercial and pop-ups.
 ‘To be naked is simply to be without clothes, whereas the nude is a form of art’[2]. At least Tom Ford has made it some what artful, I mean just look at the image. He has to an extent taken his advertisements and turned it from being naked to what some would consider art.
    However, in the end sex most definitely sells. And I would be surprised if a small portion of Tom Ford's success is attributed to use of woman in his advertisements.

Work Cited

[1]Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: Penguin, 2008.
[2] Berger, John. 53

Television, The Third Parent?

    “Ah T.V. respects me, it laughs with me not at me” Homer Simpson, The Simpsons.

I am an 18 year old guy living in the 21st century, the age of technology, and I respect and love everything television has done for society. Your probably saying to yourself, “Kevin your crazy, how can you respect something that has ultimately brainwashed and slowed down society for the worse.” Well to those people I saw, “Damn, That's Whack.”
    Instead of covering all the boring facts of the creation of the television, I am going to jump right into its cultural impact. The television is a cool medium, as it takes much participation from the viewer to make sense of the information that is disseminated through it. To watch TV you must view with your eyes the images presented on the screen as well as listen carefully to the audio component. It is not the television itself that is impacting a society, in my opinion, it is what is being displayed on it which ultimately has the upper hand.
    There are several advantages of television, like having a clear idea of what is happening in the world. We can get live feeds of several events like the Olympics or something tragic like the Tsunami's in the Philippines. We can get a weather forecast several days in advances and we make plan according this. Television has shrunk the distances of the world, you can watch what is happening several thousands kilometres away from you. “All of us perceive the world as a whole through the experience of our senses can only reveal a world that is fragmented and incomplete... our perception of 'reality' is an act of faith, based on mere fragments” [1] All of us seek closure so that we may not just rely on this so called 'faith'. Television brings forth this closure. I can gain knowledge of something happening in the other side of the world from the comfort of my home.
    A lot of programs really engage the viewer's mind, and this can make TV a great learning tool. Growing up I would watch shows like Seasame Street, Barney and Magic School Bus. In which messages of purity and good morals seeped into my subconscious. May this be the reason by which I make my choices. Quite possibly.

       How television has portrayed the family is important because television is a source for learning about family: what families look like, what an ideal family is, how spouses are supposed to behave, how parents are expected to treat their children, and how families resolve problems. The television brought about shows of the “typical North American family”. The nuclear family, beautiful home, man with a successful job, stay at home wife, two and a half kids. The 'American Dream' displayed at its finest. Leave it Beaver, being a prime example of this. Slowly television shows began showing a depiction of reality through television programs like, Roseanne, The Simpons and others. They tackled realistic issues and conflicts that go about in the average family. The dysfunctional family at its finest.  So as a culture are people simply modelling themselves after what we see? Or do these programs serve a greater purpose? We just have understand that the representations made by the media are not always accurate . That's the answer
    “Today, television is the most significant of the electric media because it permeates nearly home in the country.”[2] People should reflect on the impact that this cool (pun intended) medium has had on our culture. However I love the way T.V is now and honestly I want to stop reflecting because that will ruin the experience of watching. Now if you excuse me Three's Company is on... Come and knock on our door.  We’ve been waiting for you.

Work Cited

[1]McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics. New York: Harper Collins, 1994.
[2]“The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Heim.ifi.uio.no. Playboy, Mar. 1969. Web. 07 Oct. 2009. .

So Here We Go

What am I doing? I should never be given power to express myself via a blog. That is just insane. First of all, I posses the writing skills of  grade 9 student. This is probably due the fact that reading is not exactly part of my everyday activities. I once spent a whole month reading “The Great Gatsby” for my grade 11 English class. Afterwards, I was not exactly aware of what was going on in the book. All I know is that Gatsby throws the 'dopest' parties. It is not that I hate reading, I just believe my attention span can not handle it. Ah our generation is splendid, don't you think?
    Second of all I detest blogs. People just use for an excuse to criticize other things. They would rant on about nonsense and they believe they are getting a point across. This results in a following, religiously following the words of this 'blogger'. I came across an interesting site called http://www.ihatethis.org/, you should check it out. It is basically a website where people can go and write a blog about the things they hate. Everything from certain types of music, different brands and even politicians. Half the time they do even have an educated answer, it is just “because”. However I believe an academic blog will be different. It will be more sophisticated, have better arguments and in the long run make society a little more aware and a little bit smarter. well at least my blog will do this. I am ready to take on the challenge.
    Making a blog is honestly one of the easiest things you can do. Which probably explains why everyone already has one. All this involved was Googling the phrase “make a blog” and I choose the first option that popped up. Boy do I love advances in technology! I set up my own free account, choose a hilarious and creative title (yeah right) and choose basic settings to what would become the basis of my blog.
    McLuhan basis of the rear view mirror seem to be the purpose of me blogging.  “He felt people subscribed to a "rear-view mirror" understanding of their environment, a mode of thinking in which they did not foresee the arrival of a new social milieu until it was already in place. Instead of "looking ahead" society tends to cling to the past.” [1] My role as this “public figure”  is to make people more aware of their surroundings and get them to think, to this metaphoric car in drive. But in order to do this, I am going to have to treat this like this is my own PRIVATE diary and pretend like no one is reading. That is the only way I am going to be able to break out my hardened shell and take on the public world. Realistically I know people will be reading this, and judging and I accept this and it is overwhelming. So piece by piece I break this metaphoric shell and I will take on this world, one blog at a time. So once again I ask, what am i doing?

                                 This is me pondering the fact that you are reading my thought!

Work Cited
[1] “The Playboy Interview: Marshall McLuhan.” Heim.ifi.uio.no. Playboy, Mar. 1969. Web. 07 Oct. 2009. .