Fifteenth Bit of Media—My Own (I already very aptly named a post "Reflection," so I can't very well call this one the same thing, can I?!)

For a while now I’ve been posting my reactions to various forms of media on this blog. I’ve used the ideas we’ve discussed in class and those I came here with, and this combination has led me to think more deeply and critically about all the media I intake, not just that which I feel most strongly about.

Even if I were to abolish my beloved YouTube, I would still consume more than my fair share of media in my daily life. As a white, American, middle-class, teenage girl, I fall into a very well sought out group of consumers. I have the money to buy things and the recklessness to buy them with abandon. So I (or the group I am part of) am advertised to and written to and created to regularly.

In addition to advertising, I have the luxuries of an internet connection, multiple local libraries, and a television. And not only that. I have friends who absorb just as much—if not, more—media as I do, who spread it in their conversation, ideas, and humor. So media in my life is virtually unavoidable.

As I discussed in my first reflection, the media and the populace seem to have a symbiotic relationship, in which each affects the other and both help each other to grow. I am not exempt from this. I am a self-proclaimed YouTube addict, to the point where my identity as a Nerdfighter is stronger than my identity as a Jew or a Norwegian. The ideas I have found on the internet have combined with my previous understanding to form my current ideology and knowledge of the world.

And it’s not like this is new. All of my life has been shaped at least in part by the media around me. When I was in pre-school I felt pressured to like pink because that was the color girls were portrayed liking by all the media I had seen. And I’ve been a book addict since about third grade. While my worldview is changing based on the new media I find on the internet, at its core my understanding of the world is still mainly from books, and still reflects my early reactions to media.

So I think it’s fair to say media has impacted my life quite a bit. I just never realized it until I was forced to dissect that which has made me feel and think. When I finally took the time to analyze why it bugged me or frightened me or made me so happy, I was surprised by just how much it did so.

This in turn has made me notice my intake of media, even when I don’t necessarily want to put it on my blog. When I see a glittering generality or an appeal to the need for autonomy, I now know what’s going on. When I notice that a campaign focuses more on an idea rather than a product’s function or worth, I know why its creators decided to do it. I can even attempt to figure out who they are trying to market it to, and with which strategies.

These strategies continue to work on me. I still fall for advertising and am not yet sick of the extreme messages being hurled at me from all sides by the media that surround me. So my intake of media has barely changed over this project in terms of quantity or reaction. But the main difference I have seen is that I think about media more. I still may not be the most critical of thinkers in the world, but this analysis of media has made me a lot less gullible than I used to be, or at least aware of my gullibility. I only wish that all people my age, or even younger, had the opportunity to learn about media the way I have.

Too often I hear about people being misled by propaganda and forced lack of education in media, and especially with my newfound knowledge of how media work, I feel that this education is essential to making one’s way in the world while avoiding being controlled by others.

When one knows how they are being misled, one can stop that misleading. This blog has caused me to think about which elements of the media I intake are objective facts, and which play on my assumptions and emotions or cause me to project ideas onto the information provided. With the knowledge gained through this assignment, I can analyze the messages these media send me to see how much I should believe, and what is worth bothering to notice. 

I got enjoyment and education out of this blog. It allowed me to make connections between various parts of the critical thinking class, showing how value and reality assumptions tie in with faulty reasoning, argument fallacies, and marketing strategies to comprise most of the media we intake. And it allowed me to connect these strategies to myself, to see how they affected me personally as well as the general public. I thank Mr. Starace for assigning this project, and all of my classmates whose presentations and discussions in class and insights out of class have furthered my thinking on all of the topics I covered in this blog and more.

Fourteenth Bit of Media—Adam Pacitti's Selling Himself Short

So this has been making the rounds on Tumblr. The website, as the video explains, was set up to get its founder a job. What? I mean, what has the world come to that a guy with this many qualifications needs to sell himself as an employee for an unknown company via website? How is it that someone that skilled is denied work that much? Why is it that he then turns to viral media to give him a job? All of these questions and more swirl around in my head as I think about this bizarre situation.

And perhaps what's more startling is that Pacitti's use of the techniques of gestalt and wit and humor will probably help him get that job. That this move is so preposterous that its sheer oddness grabs the attention of the viewer. The website was probably designed to make people ask questions I asked above, and to watch the video and look at Pacitti's work in an attempt to find an answer of some kind.

The constant jokes Pacitti makes in the video explanation on the website keep the viewer's attention, and help the viewer stomach his depressing situation by making light of it. Were he to state only the facts, people might feel sorry for him and even share the link to his website out of pity, but certainly not in the numbers they have done. Everyone likes a good laugh, even (some would argue especially) if it is at another's expense. And so far this has worked. His campaign for work has gone viral, so that very few of the people I follow on Tumblr have not liked or reblogged it at one point or another. So his use of wit and humor will definitely help Pacitti in his attempt to reach a wider audience.

Once it has gone completely viral, media companies will have no choice but to hire him, since he is the ideal candidate: besides his vast education and media experience, he also knows how to manipulate the media enough to go viral twice. Since the knowledge of how to make something viral is something these media companies definitely want in order to increase their profits, they will hire him.

But I can't help but feel that Pacitti is wrong in his approach. It is blatantly desperate, attention-seeking, and almost stupid in its simplicity. Yes, it's clever and gets across a point, but it also opens him up to offers for the worst sorts of jobs. Where a demostration of his capabilities in a more serious or polished work would draw in more respectable groups, I worry that companies will take his desperation at face value and use it to take advantage of him.

In conclusion, I support him, great job on the wit and humor, he'll probably get the job, but does he want it?

Thirteenth Bit of Media—Anne Hath a Brain

Over winter break I saw this interview of Anne Hathaway, one of the stars of the new film Les Miserables and now one of my favorite people. I was reminded of this interview by the documentary we watched in class.

For his first question, the interviewer brings up an incident in which photographers took pictures that showed up Hathaway's dress when she was wearing no underwear.

Before we go any farther, WHAT? This interview is about the MOVIE, not Anne Hathaway's privates. They're called PRIVATE for a reason. Why is this guy talking about something so personal as this when he's supposed to be asking Hathaway about the goshdarn MOVIE?!

This incident was an unfortunately all-too-common one, what with the paparazzi trailing anyone remotely famous and trying as best they can to get pictures of those people as undressed physically and emotionally as possible. But what was uncommon and inspirational was Hathaway's response to this incident being brought up. Instead of simply acting embarrassed or trying to move on, Hathaway addressed the issue with one of the thematic ideas of the movie. She expressed her sadness that instead of deleting pictures of her in "a vulnerable moment," the reporters kept the pictures and even sold them to be published worldwide. And she said she was sad that her sexuality was unwillingly sold, just as in the movie. For this thoughtful, dignified response to such a crude and sexist question, I truly admire her.

But the interviewer, EURGH! His response to her answer: "That's one of the most creative turns of a question I have ever heard, and I'm gonna take it at that, that's fine." No "Yeah, you're right!" or "I never thought of it that way" or any sign that he was listening or understood. No respect. Just "Wow, you changed the subject in a really interesting way! I guess I won't press you on it, even though it's my G-d-given right to know everything about your embarrassment at having the world see under your skirt." Why is this interview eerily reminiscent of the documentary we were watching in our critical thinking class? Why was this guy so mean and creepy and sexist?

And the comments on the video. I was heartened to see much support for Hathaway, but then I got to comments like these:

Because victim-blaming is always the right way to approach a situation. Because Anne Hathaway, despite her lucrative and talented acting career, is actually a prostitute. Because being a prostitute makes one inherently dirty and shameful. Because everyone watching this wants to see Anne Hathaway's private parts.

Not.

How is it that these people blame Hathaway for observing a common Hollywood practice (underwear leaves noticeable lines when worn under most of the dresses these actresses wear)? How is it that they pretend they know her motives for wearing that outfit? And how is it that they assert these motives were to show her body to them? Why does she need attention from the likes of them? Hathaway is a talented, insightful young woman, and therefore can get attention from deeper thinkers and more respectful people than these.

But even though these comments were by far the minority, their stupidity, arrogance, and sexism shocked me. I was unprepared for so violent a response to so graceful a performance. When I saw that documentary in critical thinking, I got a taste of how sexist the world really is. I saw the numbers behind the problem, and some pretty moving stories as well. But seeing these comments made by people on my belovéd internet, YouTube no less, felt all the more scary. If this eloquent woman isn't safe from the vicious remarks of these people, how can I feel safe?

How can I feel safe in a world in which I must conform and wear the dress, but am then blamed for it?

This angered and scared me a lot. If even on the Today Show, a news anchor was willing to talk about a woman as if she was merely a body seen by millions and not an Academy Award and Golden Globe nominee, then the documentary we watched was right: we have a long way to go.

Twelfth Bit of Media—Fifty Shades of Gay (Let's Get People's Attention and then Make Them Identify With Us!)

Disclaimer: The title refers to the fact that the word "gay" has many different connotations and meanings. It is also a pun on a popular book series. But aside from the pun, this post will have no connection the the vile series in question.

Now that that's out of the way, allow me to show a video I recently encountered:

This video is about the word "gay." In it, Mandy explains her early exposure to the word as a stand-in for "stupid" and expresses distaste for her general ignorance and offensiveness at the time. But what made this video stick with me was not the message—that message is fortunately a common one in my community, and so not so unexpected. What really gripped me was Mandy's use of the plain folks and gestalt techniques in creating and selling her online persona.

Like most video-bloggers, she uses the plain folks technique to enrapture her audience. She does this in part by the supposed "low quality" of the video—the slow editing, poor lighting, and the obvious fact that it was filmed in her house, instead of an office or studio.

The slow editing and overall pace of this video as compared to that of YouTube giants makes the video seem more conversational than cinematic, making the audience feel as if her message and her channel are grounded in their reality.

The lighting only serves to accentuate the reality of the situation. It says: "I am making this video to connect with you, not to act as a stand-in for TV." It shows that she is a real person who, like most viewers, does not have the fancy camera or microphone or lights necessary to pull off a "high-quality" production.

And this is exemplified by the fact that Mandy is not filming in a studio or some other beautiful place, but in her own home. This furthers the notion that she is an ordinary person, since it shows lives in a home like the viewer, giving the viewer a subtle empathy for her. In the "low quality" of her video, Mandy consciously or unconsciously uses the plain folks technique by showing herself to be like the average viewer.

But far more powerful than plain folks is her use of gestalt. In her use of "gangsta" slang, crazy hand gestures, and odd tone, she subtly and sometimes not-so-subtly causes the viewer to feel on-edge and disconcerted.

Throughout the video, Mandy uses "gangsta" slang, a mostly American invention which could hardly be a major part of her natural speech pattern. Yet she uses it naturally, and the contrast it provides with the word choices normal to her accent creates a sharp cognitive dissonance, particularly in the brain of an American who is not used to the coincidence of the two accents.

Along with the normal gestures she makes to express herself, Mandy also makes some very odd ones. These often grand, jerky hand movements serve to emphasize the accent she puts on, adding another level of discomfort in the viewer's mind.

And as she speaks and moves oddly, Mandy's tone becomes either whiny or sarcastic, depending on the mood of what she is saying. Since she normally speaks plainly, even less in this whiny tone than most Americans I know, her quick transitions from normal to whiny present an odd juxtaposition. This increases the feeling of the bizarre that pervades the video thanks to the gestalt Many employs with her use of slang, motion, and tone.

Even as I was riveted by Mandy's exploration of her experiences of the word "gay", I found her conscious and unconscious attempts to sell her channel fascinating. As with many of the YouTubers that I watch, she must advertise herself for money. In her channel description, she says that she, "would like to work in production or ideally as a Presenter, my dream job. O GOD PLEASE HIRE ME."

While this is an exaggeration for humor, it shows how she uses her channel as a continual audition for any job in her area of expertise. By drawing viewers, likes, favorites, and subscriptions, she increases the probability that those who might hire her will know she exists.

In looking at this woman's attempts to advertise herself, we see the epitome of small YouTubers: a young person trying through plain folks and gestalt techniques to gain a wider audience and the ability to follow their creative dreams. We must hope that the rest end up where Mandy is now, confident with a solid group of friends rather than a solid number of views. (Although admittedly also working for Google—so is this good after all?)