A couple of caveats: if you use Google image search to find an image, you must identify the source for the image. Remember that context matters, so a picture of Brittney Spears published on a random website just for viewing is not the same thing as a picture that occurs within an advertisement, magazine or news article, or television show or film.
You might think of the response this way: identify the concept, identify the text, and then analyze: how does this text illustrate the concept you're talking about? This means you won't just tell us what you find in the image the text is creating, you'll tell us how what you see communicates particular messages (in other words, what does it mean?)
You can simply describe the image you're using (making sure to identify the source), but instead, if you'd like to include a link in your post to the image you're working with, here's how you do that:
- Copy (ctrl-C is the keyboard shortcut) the URL from the address bar.
- Where you want the link to appear in your post, type in the following html code, replacing the square brackets with angled ones: [a href=“http://Internet URL goes here”]Title the visitor sees.[/a]
- Paste the URL inside the quotation marks. Type in the word or phrase you want to carry the link (what you want readers to click on) where it says "Title the visitor sees."
To get you started, here are some concepts that might make for fruitful analysis: symbolic annihilation, framing, biological determinism, reinforcing the status quo, dominant ideology, stereotyping, gendering, postfeminism, media literacy, intersectionality, social construction, priming.
19 comments:
I'm actually going to use 2 terms that we have discussed, but I am not going to relate them to women in media. I'm going to use stereotyping and dominant ideology to talk about how the Irish were viewed by the Victorians after Ireland became a British colony. Dominate ideology, to me, is if a large group of people think a certain way, then it is accepted as correct, just because most of the people think that way. And when this dominant ideology takes over, people can form judgments on things on people based on stereotypes that can form, whether these ideas of groups of people are close to the truth or not. A stereotype can be formed to aid one side, usually the side with the dominant ideology, when they are battling or having conflict with another group of people. When Ireland was taken over by England, the Irish became a stereotype. The English bourgeois intellectuals looked down upon the poor Irish people and they became thought of as brutish and almost barbarian. Because this group of people thought of suffering Irish as a colony that was too dumb or drunk to farm, that maybe they weren't saving, the nation as a whole thought down on the Irish. They began to think of the Irish as monkey-like and violent. As time went on, the stereotyping of the Irish as brutish got worse and worse. It can be seen in the Punch Anti-Irish propaganda cartoon: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Punch_Anti-Irish_propaganda_(1846).jpg. This British cartoon shows their dominant ideology stereotype of the Irish.
I am going to do symbolic annihilation. Wikipedia defines the term as the absent of representation in the media. My understanding of this definition is what the image doesn’t show you that they should. What the image is missing is what really brings meaning to the image itself. You could also think of it as what is missing from the picture and how does that play into the meaning. In class we looked at the new twins from Angelina Jolie. They show Brad and Angelina holding the twins and then Shiloh at the top holding one of the twins. They left out the other 3 adopted kids. They are supposed to be showing the loving family but where are those other kids? They are very important to what they are trying to say here.
To show and explain this concept I chose Lynne Spears new book cover. It can be found here: http://blogs.nypost.com/popwrap/photos/Through-the-storm.jpg . The name of her book is called Through the Storm: A Real Story of Fame and Family in a Tabloid World. It talks about raising Britney and Jamie Lynn. It has a nice picture of Lynne Spears looking out a window in a quiet looking environment. I think this is contradictory to what the title is about. She didn’t raise these girls in a quiet environment. They were only in Kentwood a fraction of the time. You would always see them in Hollywood. Another thing is the title itself. Through the Storm? So the drama is over? I don’t think so. I think it should have been called Making it Through the Storm or Going to Make it Through the Storm.
I think that the photographer or who ever planned this picture wanted people to feel sorry for her and buy the book. They wanted to show her as calm and nurturing. What is missing here is very important. Let’s say that you have never heard of Britney and Jamie Lynn. Why is there not a picture of Lynne with bald-headed Britney, and Jamie Lynn on the cover of people with the headline, I’m sixteen and pregnant and the baby’s daddy just broke up with me. Now please don’t judge me. I respect Britney and Jamie Lynn. I even have to admit that I have watched Zoey 101 and own some old Britney CDS. I am not judging them because I don’t know the whole truth about their lives, but let’s be honest here. If someone who never heard of this family is more likely to buy it if you show the truth about what you will be talking in the book.
What’s missing from this picture is important. The book is about her kids yet her kids are not on the cover with her. I think that is very important. Maybe they are too much for the cover to handle. I think that if you can write a book about your children they should be there with you.
I would like to look at an image through a media literacy lens. Media literacy encourages people to observe images presented in the media critically. In her article, Rebecca Ann Lind sites another author, Aufderheide, who articulated that media literacy “helps people understand, produce, and negotiate meaning in a culture made up of powerful images, words, and sounds” (p. 8). I see images every day conveying negativity towards certain individuals based on many things, such as race and gender. We are presented with media images daily, and it is up to the consumer, or the audience, to fully understand it. We need to be skeptical and analytical. One shockingly inappropriate image stands out in my mind, and I would like to look more in depth at its meaning.
Sometime in the past year, LeBron James and Gisele Bündchen appeared on the cover of Vogue Magazine. Many people would look at a picture of an African American man and a white woman and presume our society has made some serious progress in terms of racism in the United States. After all, this was the first time a black man had appeared on the cover of Vogue Magazine. What is more important, however, about this photograph is not the fact that these two people are on the cover of a magazine and not that these two people are on the cover of a magazine together, but the way the two are presented in the photograph.
The most noticeable aspect of this picture is the facial expression and appearance of both LeBron and Gisele. LeBron appears mean, ferocious, and fuming; he looks like he could explode out of the magazine at any moment. Gisele on the other hand, is presented as classy, sophisticated, and lady-like. On top of their facial expressions, Gisele is dressed in expensive-looking attire, with her hair and make up done, appearing glamorous. LeBron is in simple sports clothing. Granted LeBron is a sports figure and Gisele is a model, but how many magazines present Rodger Federer (a tennis player) or David Beckham (a soccer player) in these kinds of clothes on the cover of – not a sports magazine – but a fashion magazine? If LeBron was not African American, I do not think he would be presented in this way on the cover of a fashion magazine. These magazines are designed to show glamour and good fashion; why dress the person on the cover in sports clothing?
Besides the way both LeBron and Gisele look, the presentation of this cover shot does not sit well with me. There is plenty of text covering LeBron’s body, and Gisele’s body is barely covered at all. I just cannot see this as a coincidence; there is text covering his entire right arm, and the text on the right side of the magazine is strategically placed so Gisele’s arm is not covered at all.
Looking at this image through a media literacy lens illustrates how inappropriate the media can be. I was shocked when I saw this cover; I could not believe something like this was acceptable for grocery store shelves. Vogue magazine may have made a big step putting an African American man on the cover of their glamorous magazine, but they must have realized the implications that have arisen because of the differences in appearance and state of the two people on the cover.
Link to Image: http://blogs.timesunion.com/lizfunk/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/vf-cover.jpg
I am going to do stereotyping. On the wikipedia website it defines stereotyping as a generalized perception of first impressions: beliefs, and behaviors presumed by a group of people judging with the eyes/criticizing ones outer appearance(or a population in general) to be associated with another specific group. Stereotypes, therefore, can instigate prejudice and false assumptions about entire groups of people, including the members of different ethnic groups, social classes, religious orders, the opposite sex, etc. A stereotype can be a conventional and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image, based on the assumption that there are attributes that members of the "other group" have in common. Stereotypes are sometimes formed by a previous illusory correlation, a false association between two variables that are loosely correlated if correlated at all. Though generally viewed as negative perceptions, stereotypes may be either positive or negative in tone. To me stereotyping is when people group together other people based on just one thing that they know about that person. For example there are many stereotypes when it comes to environmentalists. Most people think of long-haired tree huggers who get around in torn jeans and Birkenstocks, but that is just a stereotype.
The picture I copied is very good picture for my word because it is stereotyping that all models are anorexic and bulimic. In the picture is a model with food on the ground and she has throw up on her hands and also around her mouth. This is a very good picture of stereotyping
http://www.zap2it.com/news/custom/photogallery/zap-photogallery-antm7_stereotypes092006,0,356553.photogallery?index=12
This picture is of a native from another country. It is an example of ethnocentrism and essentialism. When an American sees this picture they ultimately portray the person as a “native” no matter what country he comes from. The “native” is often looked at as abnormal or strange based on his outward appearance. To members of his own group, he is looked at as normal whereas an American would see him as strange.
The identity of this one individual portrays a whole group and reduces the group to this one identity. People who are not familiar with this cultural will think every “native” appears this way. Because of the media and images depicting natives in other lands, the schema that a person will have when thinking of natives may closely depict this image.
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/6786/natives0ge.jpg
Dominant ideology, as Lind calls it in her literary piece, “Laying a Foundation for Studying Race, Gender, and the Media”, represents an underlying ideology that is usually accepted by most of society’s members (p7). Beginning with the Marxism theory, throughout slavery, and still today, America had developed this concept that Anglo-Saxon ways of life are the correct and only way of living. Through dominant ideology, and what media considers norms and happiness, stereotypes and discrimination arises. Stereotypes, according to Bradley Gorham, are structures in our mind that cause us to make judgments based on the presence of a few relevant characteristics instead of the whole picture.
Although mass media is America’s most successful means of communication and information, television news and Internet posts have become very commercialized and misleading. In many cases blacks as disproportionately represented as being highly involved in murders, welfare, crimes, drugs, and many other negative activities. Existing stereotypes and exaggerated social situations cause blacks to struggle with upward mobility. Mass media, a white owned institution, has played a fundamental role in the way Americans perceive African-Americans. As a result of the overwhelming media focus on negative characteristics and other forms of rebellious behavior among African-Americans, the media has fostered a distorted and destructive public perception of African-Americans. Because of society’s underlying segregation and social construction, whites hardly ever have personal encounters with blacks and know blacks to be what mass media portrays. Mass media portrays blacks to be manipulative and evil, so that is simply what some whites know of the African-American race to be.
I did not necessarily choose a specific image to relate to both dominant ideology and stereotyping, but instead I found out an interesting fact. Something sparked and led me to do a little Google research. I typed in “black male” and observed what came up, and then I typed in “white male” and observed what came up. Coincidentally, 75% of the first five photos of “black male” were mugshot photos or black dogs, which are symbolic because mugshot photos signify criminal behavior, and black dogs are simply animalistic. On the contrary, there was only one mugshot photo when I researched “white male” on the first half of the first page and excessive pictures of businessmen. To me, this was proof that stereotypes do exists and dominant ideology causes America to base reality upon exaggerated media stories and racial monopoly.
I chose framing in the media as my concept. According to Wikipedia, framing is the ability “to contrive or prearrange fraudulently or falsely, as in a scheme or contest.” I believe this statement to mean that an image or any media outlet can be made “picture perfect” or presented in a way different than the actual photo. The example I chose to use is an [a href=“http://www.magazine-agent.com-sub.info/us-weekly/covers?c=1&cov=COVER0020314.JPG&pg=3”]US Weekly Magazine.[/a] The covers shows Britney Spears as a happy, young child in a dance costume. Then below the picture is a caption that reads “Britney’s Twisted Childhood” Also; the magazine shows a small picture of Britney as an adult.
The editors with the use of two words “twisted childhood” frame this image. The picture of Britney as a child alone is a good and fun picture. My first thought would be that this was a happy child. Now with the addition of the extra captions and extra picture, the readers see a child who is actually troubled behind her smile. Her so called “twisted childhood” according to the magazine, is the excuse for her crazy and troubled young adult life. With the use of framing, a little girl smiling now has a twisted childhood.
The term that best identified with the article I chose was stereotyping. A definition from Wikipedia described stereotyping as a generalized perception of the firsts impression: beliefs and behavior presumed by a group of people judging with the criticizing ones outer appearance to be associated with another specific group. The best definition, in my opinion for this particular article and photo stated that a stereotype can be a conventional and oversimplified conception, opinion , or image based on the assumption that there are attributes that member of a particular sex, religion, etc.
I watched the particular clip of SNL where Tina Fey mocked Sarah Palin. Not only did I find the particular scene sexist, but I did not respect the manner it mocked religion. The fact that Tina Fey made stereotyped another woman, particularly someone who may create a defining moment in history for women was disturbing. I respect the fact that the clip was meant to be a joke, however in my opinion it touched on many sensitive subjects. I respect Sarah Palin for the way in which she responded to the clip, by admitting she thought it was amusing. But I firmly believe as women, we should stick together to dissolve these common stereotypes.
http://www.accesshollywood.com/mccain-camp-calls-feys-palin-impersonation-sexist-cindy-mccain-slams-view_article_11277
In my topic I decided to talk about framing and how the media uses it. My understanding of framing is taking an object and fixing it to be more presentable to the audience. Some examples of how framing is done is by the clothes the people in the photo are wearing or not wearing, the color of light used in the image, whether they are smiling or not. Framing is taking a normal image and changing it (or framing it) to appeal to more people. The picture I chose for to show framing is the dove campaign ad . The women are standing confidently ½ naked. They do not have the model shape and look to be like a woman we could see on the street. This image is framed to attract normal average women and make them feel comfortable.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://agencyspy.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/dove-image.jpg&imgrefurl=http://agencyspy.wordpress.com/category/we-hear/&h=290&w=454&sz=9&hl=en&start=14&um=1&usg=__MtHf-WmAS5_5y7h31acNZcHBm54=&tbnid=mhTOxDRUvd_cWM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddove%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1G1GGLQ_ENUS292%26sa%3DN
Social construction describes the divisions within a society and how roles are distributed among each of its divisions. Almost every society is divided by gender, and usually in the male's favor. For instance, in Western society men typically assume "lead" roles, such as that of the breadwinner, the executive, or even the president of the United States, whereas women provide the "supporting" roles of the mother, the housekeeper, or the person who puts dinner on the table. This role segregation places women in a subservient position to men, in which women are constantly expected to please them. One of the most obvious ways this manifests is in society's obsession with female attractiveness, female bodies in particular. In an infamous Brazilian ad for Fit Light Yogurt (which can be easily found on dozens of sites through Google), three photos taken from famous movie scenes are shown with plus-sized models in replace of the original actresses. The caption on the ad reads "Forget about it. Men's preferences will never change." The ad essentially mocks plus-sized women and their efforts to look attractive as they are, and plays on their body insecurities in order to get them to buy yogurt.
Dominate ideology was defined in class as one set of beliefs that circulates as the dominate ideology to reinforce the status quo. Typically, this term refers to society as a whole, but specific social groups may form dominate ideologies to emphasize normal behaviors and attitudes. The young adults making up the Facebook generation have developed unique ideologies that spark questionable social norms. In the Health and Body section of this month’s Glamour magazine, shocking statistics and a disturbing Facebook group are used to reveal a new and unhealthy social trend of young women. The article explains how experts are concerned about the rise in binge drinking of college females. Trying to keep up with the men, they are consuming more than their bodies can handle posing a risk to their health. Images included with the article are from a popular Facebook group called 30 Reasons Girls Should Call It a Night with 173,954 members and 4512 pictures mostly of girls displaying their worst behavior. The group members celebrate this behavior by adding comments of laughter and approval under pictures of girls peeing in public, passed out in random locations, and posing in questionable positions.
Bartenders and club managers commented in the article that “young woman are getting more drunk these days” and that they are cutting off women as much as men from drinking over their limit. Their statements suggest that there is a new dominate ideology for young women: they are taking pride in their extreme drinking habits. These drinking habits have been formed as young women use alcohol to address emotional stress, self-esteem insecurities, and sexual frustration. As more young women use alcohol for these purposes, a social norm for female college binge drinking is being reinforced. Internal development of this ideology between college-aged females is not the only factor influencing this disposition. Women are attempting to model their intake by the men’s standard. Although a woman’s ability to drink as much as a man may seem commendable, it is very dangerous. Some celebrity lifestyles projected by the media also model the same kind of female behavior. How many news stories have we heard about female celebrities getting smashed at high end clubs in LA. Their extreme and fabulous party lifestyle has been portrayed as normal in their elite society. As young women are influenced by celebrity media, why can’t they behave the same as their celebrity idols?
This female drinking ideology will only grow in dominance because of the social group that breeds it. Every year, a new generation of young women will be exposed to this lifestyle as they enter college. Pressure to drink from male and female peers and internal motives will spark young women to test their limits. A dangerous cycle will continue as younger women begin to pick up the bottle and the experienced drinkers never put it down. Hopefully articles like the one in Glamour may spark young women to change their ideals.
Dominant ideology is a term describing a basic set of common values or beliefs which permeate a society. The values and beliefs consequently shape the attitudes and actions of people and governments within that society.
An important dominant ideology of China was recently exposed to the West during the 2008 Summer Olympics held in Beijing, China. The opening ceremony to the Olympics was televised worldwide to an estimated six hundred million to one billion people. The Chinese nation was on worldwide display.
As part of the opening ceremony, an adorable nine-year-old girl, Lin Miaoke, won the hearts of the world as she performed the national anthem of China, "Ode to the Motherland," during the opening ceremony. Her flawless singing, beauty and performance took place as the national flag of China was brought into the arena.
However as days went by, the young Olympic singer was exposed as a fake. It was revealed that Lin Miaoke had not been singing, but had only lip-synched the words as they were sung by a hidden young girl, Yang Peiyi. Yang Peiyi had been chosen to sing, but was not allowed to be recognized as the performer because of a basic belief permeating Chinese culture that the image of their modern Oriental society must be perfection and power. The individual within China has no importance and no power, except as a servant to the nation.
According to a statement from Chen Qigang, the event’s general music designer, Yang Peiyi had a perfectly beautiful voice, and was consequently selected as the anthem’s young singer. However, she was not chosen to be onstage because she was not considered pretty.
Chen Qigang explained to a Beijing radio station, "This is the national interest. It is the image of our national music, national culture. Especially the entrance of our national flag; this is an extremely important, extremely serious matter.” (www.guardian.com)
Mr. Qigang and other Chinese officials felt the child on camera should be flawless in both beauty and expression. After several inspections and meetings by the directors, selected spectators, and a member of the Politburo, it was decided that the girl with the beautifully perfect voice, Yang Peiyi, should sing unseen because she was not considered pretty. One major consideration was that she had buck teeth, which were considered a major flaw. The pretty and vivacious girl with perfect teeth, Lin Miaoke, was selected to visually represent the youth of China by lip-synching. She was not allowed to sing as her voice was not good.
Americans and Europeans were shocked that the true singer would have remained hidden instead of being recognized onstage. This shock was a result of the West’s dominant ideology – in opposition to that of China – which recognizes the importance of the individual to achieve and to be recognized for one’s accomplishments.
To the Chinese, having one young girl sing hidden away because she was a perfect singer while another child, a perfect beauty, pretended to sing, was not surprising. It was to be expected. The only consideration of importance was portraying perfection, beauty, and power of the nation. Clearly, the average Chinese could not understand the West’s surprise at hiding the true singer.
China’s dominant ideology conflicted with the opposing dominant ideology of the West and created a newsworthy situation at the Olympics. The Chinese wanted their country seen as perfect because the world was watching. The Western world, shaped by philosophies recognizing the importance of the individual and of individual accomplishment, was shocked by China’s denigration of individual achievement in hiding away the true singing child. The majority of people and reporters throughout the Western world felt China’s action inappropriate. The Chinese thought their action normal and expected.
The word I chose to focus on is “schema.” This word is used and defined in Gorham’s text—“The Social Psychology of Stereptypes: Implications for Media Audiences.” A schema, simply stated, is a broader term for the word stereotype. Humans use schemas to mentally catergorize nearly anything in terms of our “knowledge, beliefs, and expectancies” of a certain object or group—for example. Although some schemas can be positive, the majority are derogatory and shaped by a majority group that defines an entire minority by merely a few negative, exaggerated traits held by a limited number of the group’s members. In these terms, a schema is essentially a stereotype.
Schemas are seemingly inescapable; we all form them cognitively. However, different people are capable of acting on them in different ways. Often, when people have knowledge of these schemas they can control the way they interpret them. This leads me to bring up the images I chose to relate my word choice to.
All of the images I chose are in some way related to homosexuals—whether it’s a supportive or antagonistic relation. The schemas that heterosexuals have painted for homosexuals are well-known. For example, homosexual men are often thought of as having overly feminine mannerisms, being STD prone, and being “sissies.” These schemas are often given to these men upon knowledge of their sexuality, regardless of their actual character.
The first picture I chose is a picture of teenage boy from the United States who was severely wounded by several heterosexual teens for simply being gay—and no other reason. This is an example of how people can chose to act violently as a result of schemas, regardless of if the person actually fits the negative expectations. For all we know, this homosexual boy may not have fit any of the negative schemas that caused this unnecessary violence.
The next two pictures I chose are of two teenage boys who were recently hanged in Iran for speculation that they were gay. Iran is a country that is highly intolerable of homosexuals, and the penalty for being so is death. There are numerous countries throughout the world that have strict penalties for being homosexual or engaging in homosexuals acts; these penalties range from fines to prison to death. This shows how an entire country may support negative schemas towards a specific minority group and the inhumane, harsh actions that may be taken because of them.
My final picture shows how people are capable of using schemas to show support of certain minority groups—specifically homosexuals. Even though some of the heterosexuals in this photo may be aware of negative schemas placed on homosexuals, they are controlling there response to them and using this knowledge to show how homosexuals are misrepresented, mistreated, and deserve basic rights.
People often use negative schemas—such as the ones placed on homosexuals—nonchalantly and humorously without thinking of any implications or harm they may cause. Before making yourself part of the majority who helps paint these negative schemas—or stereotypes—think of the young boys hanged in Iran, or you can even think of the thousands of people who are making a difference by supporting minorities.
Wesly G
Dominant ideology is a term that means what most people in any given society feel about an issue. In “Laying a Foundation for Studying Race, Gender, and the Media”, Rebecca Ann Lind clearly defines the term ideology as “a set of deeply held ideas about the nature of the world and the way the world ought to be.” She also goes on to say that the dominant ideology “is usually accepted by most of society’s members.” Every culture has a dominant ideology on a certain subject, whether it is talked about or not. I think that adhering to the dominant ideology of one’s society is not something we think about before we do it. It becomes a habitual, subconscious act because it is the way we are taught and the way everyone else thinks. If everyone holds the same beliefs, then usually no one feels the need to question them. However, it is when people begin to question or doubt the validity of the dominant ideology that we see the evolution of a society change its course.
The example I will use is the dominant ideology in America that white people were of a superior race to African Americans. When the United States was first formed, slavery was very prevalent, and white people had more power than African Americans. Because of this, the dominant ideology was formed by white people and for white people. (This concept of racial superiority was not new to the world at the time. It was carried over from Europe.) When slavery was abolished and our country progressed, an alternate ideology emerged – that white people and African Americans were equal. This alternate ideology was pushed forward mainly by African Americans who wanted to challenge the status quo. It took time, and progress was slow. However, after the civil rights movements of the 1960s, white racial superiority was not the only thing that the children of the new generation were exposed to. White children were not solely exposed to the dominant ideology that their race was superior, and African American children grew up with the idea that there was hope for them in the future.
I think it is very interesting to follow the ideologies of a society through the years. All it seems to take is for the next generation to be exposed to an alternate ideology, and the dominant ideology of their parents may not be the dominant ideology anymore.
My view on framing in the media is seen as a concept that more often gives a negative connotation to the individual being framed then a positive one. Like Amanda B. mentioned framing in the media is defined by Wikipedia as the “ability to contrive or prearrange fraudulently or falsely, as in a scheme or contest.”
When the concept of framing was first mentioned in class, one vivid image stood out in my mind, this was an image of Sarah Palin on the cover of US Weekly. The image of Sarah Palin holding her Down syndrome child was not the problem, but it was the words beneath her that read “Babies, Lies, and Scandal,” that made an impression.
As you look at the cover you can tell that the magazine is promoting Sarah Palin in a negative way. Yes we know she has babies, but what lies and scandals could Sarah Palin possibly have. When confronted about the issue, US Weekly publisher had no response. When questioned to point out the “lies and scandals” in the article he avoided the subject. Obviously the publisher prearranged a false headline to frame Sarah Palin negatively in this contest or, in her case the presidential election.
Although I feel that most celebrities, political figures, etc, are mainly framed negatively, I have realized that this negative connotation is only given if you are not in the favorable position. In Palin’s case she is the un-favorable candidate of US Weekly, which is made even more obvious when her cover is side by side with her opponent Barack OBama. When observing OBama’s cover of US Weekly you can also see how framing has its own way of giving a person the potential to be viewed in a positive way as well. On the cover Barack, and his wife Michelle are promoting their positive family values contrasting the supposed negative values that are given on Sarah Palin’s cover.
These two covers show how powerful framing in the media can be and how the usage of words can give such strong connotations both negatively and in some cases positive.
http://www.usmagazine.com/sarah-palin-very-difficult-to-work-with
http://www.usmagazine.com/exclusive-barack-obama-michelle-is-an-extraordinary-mother
Nancy G.
I at the doctor’s office I saw this McCain Family portrait on the cover of People magazine. It was so striking to me after just seeing the Jolie-Pitt cover! I think it is a great example of some of the concepts we’ve been discussing in class. The McCain picture is like REVERSE symbolic annihilation, it is symbolic inclusion, if there is such a term. The picture was so obviously framed to portray a blended family. It looks like every possible relative is here. I have no idea who the young Indian girl is in the bottom right, but she is there, and I am sure she is there for a reason, even if it is to get me to buy the magazine too find out. I also noted that all of the family is dressed in different colors, again total opposite of the Jolie-Pitt cover. Compare the “moms” too, Angelina is all frilly and Mrs. McCain is in a suit. I also suspect that People maybe ‘gendering’ these covers slightly with the color choices… The Iolie-Pitt cover’s graphics are predominately pink whereas the McCain family cover’s graphics are mostly blue.
http://storage.people.com/jpgs/20080818/20080818-750-0.jpg
http://coverawards.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/peoplemagazinecoverawardsmarkpasetskyjohnmccainfamilyportraitmagazinecover12.jpg
Framing can be defined as the process by which different media industries display their images, and thus their messages. I can definitely see how the media does this and I think that this is what people with jobs in public relations deal with on a daily basis. The media can spin and portray a story any way in which they choose, and by doing so they influence our opinions. Even the news does this, for example, Fox News has a predominantly more conservative outlook on politics versus its competitor CNN, who has a far more liberal stance. Although this does not really allow us to make a completely unbiased decision, I do not think that framing can be completely avoided either. The media, and the people in control of what the media broadcasts/publishes, have their own opinions on certain situations, and therefore I believe that it is extremely hard for them to provide us with completely neutral information that has been untouched by their personal feelings on whatever the matter is. I think that as long as we are aware that all media information goes through the process of framing before it even reaches us, then it is up to us to form our own opinions instead of simply accepting what is being fed to us.
For example, Miley Cyrus’s pictures in Vanity Fair magazine caused uproar about the sexuality of a young teen. She’s only fifteen years old, but she is photographed with this “morning after sex hair” kind of look, definitely a look that the average fifteen year old has never portrayed. However, Britney Spears graced the cover of Rolling Stone when she was not all that much older (about 18 years old) and her photo was a lot more sexual as she was just basically just wearing a black bra and panties and holding the purple Teletubbie (which at the time was controversial over its own sexuality as the “gay” Teletubbie). I believe that the entire Miley Cyrus issue was blown out of proportion and I do not think that Vanity Fair was trying to sell her as an underage sex kitten, but rather the media caught wind of it before the issue was on the shelves and spun it it’s own way. In truth, Miley was being photographed by Annie Leibovitz and she is a very artistic photographer. Vanityfair.com also posted pictures behind the scene of that photo shoot and Miley can be seen acting like a fully clothed normal teen just moments before her “sexy” shots were photographed. In that image she’s making faces at the camera, as the hair and make up committee work on her, and she’s wearing long pants underneath the sheet-looking top. In conclusion, I believe that the whole Miley Cyrus Vanity Fair based scandal was drummed up by just another instance of media framing; yet if one was to look further into the matter, they would discover the truth on their own and make their own individual decision.
The behind the scenes issue can be found here at Vanityfair.com:
http://www.vanityfair.com/images/culture/2008/06/cusl01_miley0806.jpg
The concept I'd like to apply to the media source that I picked out is stereotyping. When the class read, "Considerations Of Media Effects" Chapter 2, there was a story that described a black man on a video with aired robbery, battery, drug possession, and concealed weapon flashing across the screen. It states that, "We are led to believe that the person shown in the video is the perpetrator of these crimes, a belief that's proven wrong by the last set of words." The next set of words said that he was a “police officer”. They tricked us into believing he was a bad man when he wasn't. Everyone has once in their life stereotyped someone because it is so hard not to. As we look at images in class I always just look at the image first instead of looking at the text first. I came across this media source in which Eva Longoria is advertising clothes by wearing an outfit for Bebe Sport. I looked at her first to see if the clothes looked good on her and then I looked for the brand of clothing she was wearing. I know that most people feel that if it looks good on her then it should look good on their selves, and I feel like that a lot of the time also. This communicates a message that if Eve Longoria wears Bebe Spot then you should too.
http://www.trendhunter.com/images/phpthumbnails/13450_1_230c.jpeg
I chose to go with the theory of ultimate attribution error which is defined in Gorham's article as behaviors of 'ingroups' and outgroups' as functions of either "internal" or "external" causes. The ingroups are defined as groups that we personally identify with and the outgroups are people who are not like us. I found this term to be very accurate when in real life situations and better yet in the media because we tend to pass judgement by what is considered to be right in our particular ingroug. For example, during MTV's VMAs this year the jonas brothers were critized for wearing a promise ring and their pure and abstinent ways by the host, someone who is a complete 180, host russell brand. The media portrays abstinence and purity as something wrong because it's not sexy, we should be able to express our sexuality by sleeping around which is what alot of tv shows show to audiences. Since the Jonas Brothers aren't part of Brand's ingroup he decided to look down upon some of the choices they had made towards something that is fairly common in the Jonas' ingroups. I also thought it was really awesome how Jordan Sparks stood up for them by saying that it was ok to wear them because not everyone wants to be a slut. Overall i just thought this was a great example of this theory because it shows how ingroups and outgroups clash on many different issues.
http://www.popeater.com/music/article/virgin-pride-sparks-rebukes-vma-host/164795
Post a Comment