Beam me up.

So uh...how 'bout those Trekkies, eh?

I am not a Trekkie. I have never seen Star Trek, or Star Wars, or any other Star-thing that has been mass produced. I guess I'm out of the loop. I realized that Trekkies existed, and that they were an odd breed, and that's where my knowledged ended.

Until last Friday.

All I can say is...wow. I'm fascinated. I want to meet a Trekkie and go to a convention just to observe these crazy people. A million thoughts ran through my head while watching this movie, and they were verrrry varied.

AT first, I had the reaction that is probably expected: "WHAT THE HECK?!" What is wrong with you people? Why are you so invested in this made up world? Why do you spend thousands of dollars on masks? WHY ARE YOU DRESSING UP AS A (INSERT STAR TREK CREATURE HERE)??!??!? I was kind of disturbed by these people. I wondered what was so bad about their own lives that they had to focus so much on this pretend world. Then the woman who wore her outfit to the major trial came on the screen.

Wow. I mean, yeah, it's weird that she's so into Star Trek, but wow. What courage and self confidence! I say more power to her. If she wants to wear that outfit and stand up for her right to be a Trekkie, than good for her. I want to meet her. It was so interesting how all the other Trekkies made her a celebrity at the conventions.

I guess I never realized how powerful Star Trek is. When the actors came on screen to share stories about the lives they have touched, I was floored. I don't care how crazy you think Trekkies are, this is amazing. Who knew that a scifi show had the power to save lives? This just shows how freakishly powerful the media can be...it can destroy us, or it can save our lives.

Trekkies aren't really that different from the rest of the American population. We all have our media obsessions. We just don't take it to such an extreme. Regardless, everyone needs a release, an outlet through which one can forget the world. For some of us, this release is religion, or art, or sports, or whatever. For them, it's Star Trek. Maybe they're not choosing to deal with their problems in the right way. Maybe they have lost touch with reality and need to come back, if only for a moment.

But you know what...it's not only Trekkies that are like this. So why judge them differently or make fun of them for it? I say good for them. It takes guts to be a Trekkie. Right?

Embrace the Trekkies. Befriend the Trekkies. But it's probably not best to become one.

Just Thinking...

So, I seriously really liked yesterday's chapel speaker, Kerri Pomorelli. I thought she was hilarious and outspoken and said some things about Malone and Christianity that others would have been too meek to say. She's someone who has genuinely struggled with the concept of marriage in the Christian circle and the idea that you have to find your mate before you leave college or else you're nothing (as she put it so candidly: "I'm 19 and single! My life is over!") I really liked what she had to say and want to read her book if I get a chance. However, I do have a bit of a problem.

I went on her website to see what her book was called and started looking at the comic strips that she does for Radiance magazine(I think.) I was kind of disgusted by what I saw. Her comics are all about the Christian version of "Girl Power," or being content with being single. That's great! But they also feature a lot of stuff that isn't positive. For example, some of her comics feature "The Proverbs 32" woman, who indulges herself with laziness and shopping. Some of her mottos included "I will submit to NOT going to work!"

Here's another one:


So wait a second, Kerri. What exactly are you promoting here??? You're trying to be a strong Christian woman, which is AWESOME. As a semi-feminist(there, I said it) I support you in that. But if you're going to try to promote this image of a strong woman who doesn't need a man and can support herself and be happy on her own and all that jazz, then what the heck is that crap? Women's Lib is getting me down? I need a man to pay my bills? I don't have to work, I'm a woman? WHAT?!

Here we have a woman who is trying to break the media stereotype of a Christian woman by saying it's okay to be single. Yet in her own media, she does the exact opposite: When I look at these comics, I feel like she's only feeding the "bad" media image. I feel like she's saying, "yeah, it's great to be single...until I need a man to do manly things for me."

I understand that these comics are meant to be humorous and I'm probably taking them waaay to seriously, but isn't that part of being a media literate person? Partaking in media with a "surveillence" motive? I don't know. Does this count as hegemony? Even in trying to speak out against bad stereotypes, Kerri Pomorelli is essentially promoting them, or in some cases, making even worse ones. Just a thought, I guess...

Everybody Loooves a Debate.

Well, the debate in class today was interesting to say the least. Both sides brought up pretty interesting points, and though I was on the side for media conglomeration being a harmful thing(surprise, surprise!), I found myself agreeing a lot with what thye other side said. So...here's my response.

One thing that the side for media conglomeration being a good thing said that I really didn't agree with was the fact that because the media has so much money, they can use it to present us with the most important news stories. Their job is to tell us what's important, so we should trust them. Okay. I can live with that. But think back to the big stories that the media has been covering lately. For me, the first thing that pops into my mind is Anna Nicole Smith. Yeah, she was a trainwreck and it's sad that she died with all that drama, but is that REALLY important to society as a whole? What was going on in the world while the big 10 was covering her sordid life story for this past month? Maybe I'm going out on a limb, but I'm gonna say a lot has happened, stuff that we should really know as citizens of this country. Yet we're not being told. The big 10 knows that the important stuff doesn't sell as much as trashy human interest stories, so often times they don't cover them. They're abusing their power.

Something I didn't really agree with coming from my side as I heard it was the argument that the media takes away the individual spirit and all that jazz. This is very true--it's hard to be original in this media focused society, when everything innovative is quickly exploited. However, that doesn't mean that a person can't stay an individual. No matter what the media does, you're still going to be who you are. The media can't change that, it's not THAT powerful. Yes, your clothing style and whatnot will be affected, but last time I checked, you're more than what you wear. Ultimately, your opinions and personal beliefs are going to stay the same, unless you let yourself be completely taken over by the media, in which case I would be very sad for you.

One final point--maybe it's a good thing that the media causes a bit of conformity. As much as I hate to admit it, sometimes we need conformity. I mean, if a bunch of people got together and refused to compromise, instead choosing to say "I am an individual and you can't change that! So Boo on You!" or something like that, then nothing would get done. Am I making sense? Sometimes we NEED for our opinions to match up. If they didn't, we would be a society constantly arguing, to the point that nothing would ever get done and we would eventually self destruct.

So my conclusion? The media as it is right now is in a bad place. However, if they stopped abusing their power and started showing us things we need to know, things would get a LOT better.

Wow, Connections!

I really didn't know what to make of Wednesday's class discussion on hegemony and the like. It added to my theory of the media being something really creepy, but I really didn't make any connections about whether or not I've really noticed it. However, when I found myself reading a book for my research paper a few hours later, I came across a sentence that made me really think. It's referring to 1950s cinema and television and the amount of Antiblack and anti-Semetic attitudes.

""Media executives sought to indulge the prejudices of their majority audiences while not foisting too much egregoious offensiveness onto minority-group members--who were ticket buyers and TV watchers themselves--or onto majority-group members who might not like to think of themselves as prejuidiced or mean-spirited even if they did accept demeaning images of minorities."

Stop. Rewind. Go back to Wednesday's notes: "Media Agenda Thoery: the media tells us what issues we should care about."

So, in the 50s, according to all this, media producers tried riduclously hard to make it seem like racism didn't exist. If people didn't see it on the big screen, why should they worry when they saw it in the real world? After I read this, I thought back on all the old movies I've seen. I was startled to realize that I honestly can't think of ONE that featured a black actor or a Jewish actor in the foreground. Even "The Diary of Anne Frank," which is about the Holocaust, doesn't really talk about it. The movie tries to make it seem like the Holocaust wasn't really taht big of a deal--people everywhere have to suffer, and this time it was the turn of the Jewish people. CRAZY!

The book went on to site a Gregory Peck movie that tried to tackle the subject of racism: when Peck's son came home crying because people made fun of his Jewishness, Peck told him "Oh, don't worry. You're not REALLY Jewish!" WHAT?! How does that help anything?

Of course, now racism is a subject we can't escape in the media. It's in every cheesy tv sitcom, every big budget movie, every novel, blah blah blah. So what pressing topic is the media ignoring now? What information are we missing out on these days because the "Big 10" don't feel like tackling them just yet?

In the words of Allen Ginsberg, "America, this is quite serious."

My media blog is quickly turning into a paranoid rant.

Propaganda?

I've been watching a lot of old movies this week, for lack of better things to do. One of them was one of my childhood favorites, "Babe."

Look at that poster and say it with me: "awwww..."

Anyway. You've probably seen this movie, and if you haven't, you probably should. It's still as good as it was when we were little. It's the story of a little pig who is won at a county fair for Christmas dinner but ends up winning everyone's heart and becoming the world's first sheep-herding pig. With it's adorable animatronic talking animals and sweet storyline, it's a childhood classic.

After watching the movie, I decided to go online to see if it had won any awards or critical acclaim(yes, I do this for fun sometimes. I'm a nerd and I'm okay with it:) Well, it did. Critics love it and it was nominated for a bunch of Oscars, but that's not my point. As I was looking around the IMDB site for the movie, I found something on the message boards that caught my eye.

Apparantly, some people view the movie "Babe" as a modern propaganda film.

Wait, what?

I don't know about you, but when I hear "propaganda" I think of Nazis, and cults, and communism, and other things that aren't good. Propaganda tries to convince people to think a certain way. So how does "Babe" fit into this genre? Say it with me: vegetarianism. Is that a word? You know what I mean if it's not, I guess. Because of Babe's cute little face and adorable way of talking, people view him(it?) as a ploy to turn people against eating meat. Interesting. I guess I can see how this could be, but to call this cute movie a propaganda film is a bit much.

There were other movies that this person called propaganda that surprised me, including Casablanca. I guess people can turn media into anything they want it to be, which is kind of cool, but also a bit strange. If the right person analyzes it, anything could be propaganda, couldn't it? The purpose of a lot of films is to make the viewers leave with different opinions than they came in with. for example, after seeing "The Green Mile," I was against the death penalty. Does that make that movie propaganda for the death penalty? I'm not sure. I'd love to research and puzzle through this further. Maybe later.

The next time I watch a movie, I think I'll look at it differently. I'm sure I'll ask myself, what does the filmmaker want me to think about this? Are my opinions and beliefs going to change after viewing this? The film industry is such a powerful form of media--they have the power to make us think certain ways and believe certain things. Interesting.

What's True?

This morning I was channel surfing and came across a show on the Travel channel about Area 51. I don't really know much about this bit of American mythology, so I decided to watch. It was pretty intriguing. In case you, like I was, haven't a clue what makes Area 51 such a controversial topic, here's some background information. Area 51 is a place in the Nevada desert where the government(supposedly) tests new military aircraft and analyzes the weapons and aircraft of foreign "enemy" countries. It's ridiculously secretive, so much so that if you step onto the property, they have the right to shoot you or arrest you, depending on your intentions. People also believe that this is an are of UFO/alien activity, but there's no real proof. The government refused to admit that Area 51 even existed until the 1990s, when former employees filed a lawsuit saying that hazardous material used while they worked there caused major injuries and illness. Everything that goes on there is highly confidential, so naturally, Americans are obsessed with creating theories of what really happens there.

Fascinating stuff. Right?

It gets better. On the show, an expert was talking about all of the supposed UFOs that have been seen in the area. For years, Americans created their own wacky theories about the aliens that flew these UFOs and whatnot, until the government came out with a statement explaining that these weren't really UFOs at all. They were merely new military air crafts that the government was trying out, usually late at night so they couldn't be seen. It should've ended there, since that sounds like a pretty good explanation, right? Wrong.

The expert went on to say that even though that did sound logical, he believed it to be merely a case of "disinformation." What? Disinformation is the deliberate spreading of untrue information. According to the expert, the government didn't want America to know that there are aliens in Area 51, so they made up a clever cover up claiming that all of the UFO sightings were really military aircraft sightings. Pretty creepy.

Now, this example is pretty trippy and far fetched, and I for one don't believe that there are creatures from another planet roaming around Nevada, but that's not the point. Disinformation is a creepy thing, and probably something that gets used more often than we'd like to think in the news media. Think about it: We really have no choice but to believe what the media tells us in certain situations, because there's no way we can go out and find whether or not it is true. We are slaves to the media in this sense. We have to believe what they tell us and hope that it's all true. What if nothing the news reported was actually true? What if the evening news was more like a propaganda film than a reporting of what was happening in the world? Crazy stuff. This is probably starting to sound more like a tabloid conspiracy theory than an educated media blog, so I'll stop here. Hopefully at least some of this made sense.

Musings on "Zodiac"

On Friday, I went to see Jake Gyllenhaal's new movie "Zodiac." Have you heard of it? Maybe not, it's not getting much media attention yet, though it should be. It's the true story of the Zodiac killer, a Northern California serial killer from the late 60s/early 70s. The movie is based on the book by Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist who became utterly obsessed by the Zodiac, so much so that he eventually (according to the movie at least) dedicated most of his time to solving the mystery. I was pretty excited for this movie--I love a good crime mystery, and I love Jake Gyllenhaal. I was completely satisfied with the movie and will recommend it to all of you in a heartbeat(go see it! now! go!) but what I didn't expect was to find myself thinking about class concepts while watching the movie...crazy!

While I was watching this, all I could think of for awhile was how much it fit into the media myth of "Wisdom of the Rustic" in a really strange way. Now, Robert Graysmith was not a rustic man. But he also wasn't trained to be a criminologist--he was a cartoonist. Yet he eventually ended up coming closer than anyone else to solving this crime. Many of the early scenes focus on the editors of the newspaper Graysmith worked at puzzling over the Zodiac letters, trying to come to any sort of conclusion. (The Zodiac killer was obsessed with gaining media attention, and thus sent tons of letters to the newspapers about himself. He also sent codes that contained clues as to who he was and why he was murdering.) Graysmith lurked in the background, wide eyed and fascinated, until someone would inevitably notice him and say scathingly, "Don't you have a cartoon to draw?" He would scamper off, and the "experts" would go back to puzzling. Then we would see Graysmith running into his house with an armful of books on code breaking from the library. He hunched over the desk, puzzling through the codes. Eventually, he solved them. As he explained to his colleagues what they meant and how he solved them, his coworkers looked at him, mystified.
"How did you figure this out?"
"Well, I went to the library. I like puzzles."

and so on and so forth.

Is it any surprise that long after the "experts" gave up, Graysmith continued to puzzle away at this case, until eventually he had a conclusion? It's the classic story--the person no one expects to save the day does. The cartoonist breaks the Zodiac codes and eventually figures out who the Zodiac is. Meanwhile, all of the educated people sit around, scratching their heads and eventually giving up. Ta da.

Ironic, isn't it, that this story is actually based on real events? Does this mean that the media myths we all have grown to love are infiltrating themselves into reality? Strange stuff.

Well, I guess that's it. Go see Zodiac. You probably won't be disappointed.