Media Blog Reflection: How a Critical Thinking Teacher Made 30 Teens Really Paranoid

     Eight weeks later and we've reached the bitter end. The death of Metta (Cognition) World Peace isn't entirely sad, though. At funerals, we celebrate a person's life by telling stories and reflecting upon positive memories. This final post will be a celebration of the great times had through Metta (Cognition) World Peace and a reflection on what we can take away from a semester of the most useful class we will take at McClatchy: Critical Thinking.
     Though I'd like to think that keeping this blog has led me to renounce my consumption of media entirely, that's definitely not the case. At the end of the semester, I'd say that I now consume roughly the same amount of media as I did at the beginning. But that doesn't mean this class was a failure. Unless I completely misinterpreted the point of Critical Thinking, I don't think Mr. Starace intends for this class to be about why media is the worst thing ever. Media literacy isn't about hating media, but rather recognizing what media surrounds us and the implications it has on our lives. In this sense, keeping this blog has been extremely helpful. I'm without a doubt more aware of the techniques and messages present in ads. For instance, just yesterday I noticed this stick of Old Spice in my bathroom:

Just a few months ago, I would have seen this, chuckled, and moved on with my life. Now I know how naive my poor old self was. Today, I look at this deodorant and see the "Wit and Humor" and "Magic Solutions" techniques. Apparently masculinity also has a scent, which comes from scent elves. This is just one example of how my view of the media around me has changed this semester. 

     Even though I'm now aware of some of the flaws in media, I don't plan to change my behavior because of that. Simply having high media literacy is enough to better appreciate media and understand the effects of our consumption. My relationship with Gatorade is a great example. Gatorade was my assigned brand for the media analysis project, and I've found that Gatorade's marketing strategy relies on our insecurities and desire to find success (in this case through sports). Thinking about it on a deeper level has helped me find that this is really stupid; there are plenty of other ways to be successful than by being a famous athlete. Still, Gatorade tastes good, and I know that refraining from buying it won't change anything: Gatorade will still exist, I won't become a pro athlete, and the world will go on. But just recognizing that Gatorade's message is stupid has made me more self-aware, which gives companies like Gatorade less influence over my life.

     When it comes down to it, avoiding media is impossible. At the beginning of the semester, I'd say a lot of us had this preconceived notion that "media" consists of phones and social media, and that it's inherently bad. Considering that media is any medium of communication, I'd say we've all changed our views a little. What I've taken away from this semester is that a little bit of paranoia is a good thing. Given that media is unavoidable, we obviously can't dissect every media message and avoid the harm media does. If that were possible, we'd all be living in bomb shelter basements wearing tin-foil hats. Being a good consumer simply involves questioning the media presented to you and recognizing that media outlets don't control your life. To paraphrase Mitt Romney, media outlets are people. We are people. Media is just people spreading messages to other people, and we have say over how we are influenced.

     So congratulations, Mr. Starace. You've created a group of 30 media literate, slightly paranoid teenagers. I often question the value of most of what we do at school, but Critical Thinking has been a bright spot. The media blogs were one of the few assignments that I both enjoyed and got something out of. (Isn't it weird how most of school assumes we can't do both?) To thank you for an awesome semester, here's the complement to your Che Dogvara poster: Fidel Catro.

     Thanks again. Metta (Cognition) World Peace signing off.

Quite Possibly the Greatest Video to Ever Grace the Internet

     Please watch the following video:

     I don't have much to say about this video, but as we're nearing the end of our media blogs, I thought I should share with everyone the gem that is "Car Phone." Several parts of the video actually relate well to some of the topics from Merchants of Cool. The first few times I watched "Car Phone," I found it hilarious but couldn't exactly figure out why. The video itself is pretty stupid, so why do I continue to laugh at it? It seems to me that we're meant to see our parents in the protagonist/narrator played by YouTuber Julian Smith. Smith's character is the stereotypical "dad," complete with dorky glasses, slightly creepy mustache, and sort of nice shirt tucked into dress pants. What's funny about him, though, is how he interacts with technology. First of all, it's clearly outdated. The devices in the background while he irons his pants are a radio and T.V. set that look pretty antiquated. The subject of the song, Smith's car phone, is just a landline phone in a car - not all that impressive.
     Yet Smith's reaction to his gadgets is what we find funny. The song makes one point clear: the man loves his car phone. His excitement over technology that seems primitive to us is exactly the kind of fascination we see in our parents and grandparents when they use modern electronics. To paraphrase Mean Girls, it's sort of like watching a dog walk on its hind legs. At 1:56 into the video, Smith's character uses an old video camera to dramatically film the ground. Haven't we all experienced laughing at our parents for not understanding how to use common electronic devices? (Maybe not, I could just be a terrible person.) In Smith's ridiculous relationship with technology we see our parents, making the video a relatable piece of comedy.
     The fact that we find Smith's "dad" character funny shows the huge divide between our generation and our parents' generation that's discussed in Merchants of Cool. We clearly have a standard of what's hip and what isn't. The latter are often things associated with our parents like Smith's "dad" outfit and outdated phone. We find these things funny because of their lack of relevance in pop culture. Merchants of Cool discusses young peoples' tendency to rebel against their parents and create a "cool" identity of their own. "Car Phone" is funny because the subject and main character are totally outside the realm of what we consider cool. The video touches on that in the shots of Smith's son, who looks completely done with his father and his obsession with his car phone. In a lot of ways, we are the son: angsty teens embarrassed by our parents' cluelessness. And like the son, we want to be unique from our parents. (The son does so by using an iPhone.)
     This raises the question: will the iPhone eventually become the next car phone? I have no idea, but at least we can find some comfort in the fact that "Car Phone" exists. Thanks, Julian Smith.

How Mussels Killed the Hopes and Dreams of Teenagers Across America

     As many of you remember, AP testing happened last month. (Actually, you might have just pushed this memory into the depths of your mind with the rest of your traumatic memories, in which case you don't remember.) It was a stressful time for students across the country as they prepared for testing. When the day of the AP Biology exam finally came, I felt prepared: I had memorized the steps of cellular respiration and photosynthesis, the Hardy-Weinberg formula, and how DNA replication works. I opened the test booklet with all of this information stored away and the first question was about...mussels. Every AP Bio student in the country stressed over memorizing cellular respiration, but it didn't appear once on the test; yet we got a question about salinity in mussels, something not discussed once in class.

One positive of the exam was the memes!

     Some might say that AP testing is stupid. Why should we have to memorize facts and numbers in class, only to be asked if we know how to read a graph on the exam? At first, this was my reaction. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that AP testing itself isn't stupid - it just seems so because there's serious disconnect between how American education works and what the College Board (the entity that writes AP exams) expects.
     The College Board actually expects good skills of us. The questions on the AP Bio exam required graph analysis, logic, and problem-solving, all valuable skills to have. I think most people found the exam hard because these aren't skills that are emphasized as much in day-to-day school. People prepared for the exam by memorizing facts, which is what school typically encourages us to do. A good way to understand American education is by thinking back to a talk we had in history a few months ago. Some teachers are hesitant to teach the Holocaust in classrooms because the goal of education as a whole is to memorize facts simply to spit them back on a test. This very mechanical way of learning would detract from the emotional value of teaching the Holocaust.

Oh, the memes!

   The implications of this type of education are pretty depressing. As it is now, the most valuable skill you can have in a classroom isn't even learned: memory. With as much grade inflation as there is, having a decently good memory is good enough to succeed in a class. Because of this, succeeding in a class isn't all that impressive. One could easily memorize a set of facts or a sequence of phrases that earns them an "A," but in reality have no idea what the facts mean. (That basically summarizes my math class this year.)
     This is why a 5 on an AP exam is so much more valuable than an "A" in school. With the structure of American education as it is, students aren't exactly set up to do well on AP exams. This makes it much harder to succeed on AP's than in a regular class.
     Then what makes some people more likely than others to do well on AP exams? As Mr. Warren has been telling us all year, the AP Bio exam is an intelligence test. Because the College Board tests us on critical thinking (lol) skills we usually don't get from school, students who are naturally good problem-solvers, thinkers, etc. are given a huge advantage on the exams. Until the US Department of Education realizes the inconsistencies between public school systems and national college-level exams, AP testing will continue to be an intelligence test.

More memes!

Dispatch and Why People Like War

     Last week's post about rap got me thinking about music. One of my favorite songs is "The General," by Dispatch. The song tells a pretty straightforward story: a distinguished, respected general has a dream the night before a great battle, and after a sudden epiphany tells his soldiers to go home; when the men refuse to move, the general prepares for battle.

The General - Dispatch

      Not surprisingly, "The General" is a commentary on war. The song's lyrics start off by describing the general's many accomplishments. The first verse mostly focuses on the general being "decorated" with "many medals of bravery and stripes to his name." From the song's beginning, we see that the general's legacy is defined by war; and, as war inevitably means death, the general's legacy is defined by the deaths he has caused. Still, the general is somehow known for his "heart of gold." How can a man responsible for deaths have a heart of gold? Dispatch seems to suggest that war heroes often acquire glory through war, but this overshadows the fact that they were required to kill in the first place. The general's respectable reputation implies that people value glory enough to kill for it. 

     The chorus of "The General" begins to talk about the ethical problems with war. The general realizes these problems through a dream, leading him to tell his soldiers, "I have seen the others and I have discovered that this fight is not worth fighting." It seems that his dream showed him the perspective of "the others," who are presumably the enemy army. This makes the general realize that the battle "is not worth fighting," not because they're likely to lose, but because the accolades of war aren't worth the deaths of other men. The general also announces, "I have seen their mothers," which suggests that he's remembered that the opposing soldiers are real people with mothers and families, too. Dispatch's message is that war desensitizes people to killing, and remembering the humanness of others can help bring peace.

     However, the general's message doesn't bring peace. Instead of packing their weapons and going home, the soldiers stand still, "not knowing what to do with the contradicting orders" while "their eyes gazed straight ahead." Thinking of this image, I see an army of robots. The soldiers are unable to comprehend the orders to surrender, much like robots unable to process a certain command. Dispatch uses this verse to convey the message that war conditions people to only know war; the soldiers in the song seem to be machines who are literally unable to think about peace. As a result, the general "then prepared to fight." This last line sadly admits that war is only natural for people. Even if we try to make peace like the general in the song, war comes much easier to us. "The General" reflects a sad trend: people put fighting for a cause above human lives. Don't we see this in history all too often? 

Cool Hunting, Parody, and Rap

     I've never been a big fan of rap. I like some of "the classics" like Eminem, maybe some Drake; but after a while, all of it seems to blend together to me. In the last year or so, I've discovered a sub-genre of rap that appeals to me in ways rap never has: comedic rap. It appeared to be the same as traditional rap in terms of style and rhythm, but with funny, satirical lyrics. Merchants of Cool can help explain why some like rap while I prefer comedic rap.
     "Cool hunting" is a technique used by marketers to target changing trends before they become popular. This allows them to get ahead of other brands by knowing what products to market when. The problem with cool hunting is that, in many cases, cool things become uncool shortly after the media markets them as cool. It seems that consumers tend to cycle between bandwagoning and hipsterdom. This may explain why rap has been extremely popular among young people for the past 25 years. Early rap artists united teens through messages of rebellion. As an alternative to conforming to "the system," rap glorified a certain lifestyle centered around wealth, partying, and separating oneself from parents and authorities (those who were uncool). Consequently, rap became popular among young people, and marketers found a new outlet to appeal to them.
     One element of rap that has turned me away from it is the amount of materialism it seems to endorse. Cool hunters have taken advantage of rap's popularity among young people by plugging car, alcohol, clothing, and headphone brands among many more in rap songs and videos, which creates an efficient link between products and consumers. However, some rap artists have used their positions as "cool" artists to discuss social injustices and the need for change. Rappers like Macklemore don't use their work to advertise products, but rather social and political commentaries for the same reason advertisers have adopted rap as an advertising medium: it's appealing to a generation of malleable teenagers.
     But what about young people like me who don't have a reason to like rap? I have a good amount of privilege and I don't feel like I need to rebel against my parents. Comedic rappers create their appeal through a technique cool hunters have used before. Sprite used satire to make their product appealing afternthey realized endorsing a product with athletes too much made the product uncool. To set themselves apart, Sprite aired a commercial featuring NBA players Grant Hill speaking about why people shouldn't listen to pro athletes telling them to buy a product. The ad made fun of the fact that what Sprite was doing was uncool. This in itself made Sprite cool again.
     This very technique makes comedic rap appealing to those who don't like rap. Rappers who make fun of rap culture recognize that many consumers don't find rap cool. They instead parody rap to show listeners that disliking rap culture can be cool in itself. One of the best examples of comedic rap is Lil Dicky, whose song $ave Dat Money parodies the luxurious lifestyles of rappers through a music video shot with "as little money as possible." The genius of this is that it's a rap song parodying other rap songs. This is hugely appealing to people like me who find rap culture kind of ridiculous.
     In this way, comedic rappers themselves are cool hunters. They've seen the trend in people becoming disillusioned with rap, and capitalized on it to make their own sub-genre that attracts these people. It's like Lil Dicky says: "Rap game's got it all wrong." But comedic rap is getting it right.

The Mask You Live In

     Well, I guess I had to do a ranty post at some point.

     This past week, we watched Miss Representation in class and discussed the media's portrayal of women in America. The film's sequel, which I recommend everyone watch (it's on Netflix), is called The Mask You Live In, and is essentially the male equivalent to its prequel. The Mask discusses the ways American men are taught an unhealthy definition of masculinity and the ultimate effects this has on society at large. DISCLAIMER: I don't intend to use this post to undermine the problems presented in Miss Representation. These are legitimate problems facing women that we absolutely need to solve. The reality is that media portrayal of men isn't too generous either, and tackling the problems of both men and women is the key to creating a less sexist, overall better society. 

Here's a trailer.

     

     One reason I preferred The Mask over Miss Representation is because it did a better job of discussing the root causes of society's views of gender. The ideal man is typically portrayed as tall, heroic, muscular, tough, and powerful, with "coolness" prioritized over displaying emotion. Why is that? Much of it comes from the desire of straight, cis-gendered men to impress/appeal to women. If we focus on the media, ads for male products often appeal to this desire. This does two things: first, it reinforces the idea that guys' main goal should be to get girls. This in turn reinforces the second effect, which is that men believe they can get women by being like the men pictured using the product: attractive, powerful, emotionless, etc. Masculinity then becomes associated with domination over women, which is obviously harmful to women, not to mention men who aren't attracted to women in the first place and can't fit that definition, 

     Media plays a huge role in defining this view of masculinity, but men's upbringing ultimately defines how they accept or reject this definition. The Mask included a great segment of interviews with a focus group made up of male prisoners recounting the childhood influences that led them to commit their crimes. Almost all of them had abusive, absentee, or single parents. The guys had a common feeling of anger from their lack of guidance from parents, who defined the men's views of masculinity by seldom praising them. This contributed to the men's desire to seek satisfaction in ways that landed them in prison. Think of what a lot of parents would say to a young boy who plays with dolls instead of superheroes; most would say that dolls are "girl things" and superheroes are "boy things." How is a boy supposed to be healthy when he is insistently told a rigid definition of masculinity that he inevitably can't entirely fit? He can't. What we often get instead is a culture of hypermasculinity that encourages guys to be aggressive and, in the prisoners' case, commit crimes. 

     The Mask, like Miss Representation, shares some shocking statistics about the effects of society's narrow definition of masculinity, the most troubling being those concerning mental health. On paper, women are statistically more likely to become depressed or develop eating disorders. However, as The Mask points out, an estimated 50% of men with mental illnesses never seek treatment. When the definition of masculinity emphasizes concealing emotions and being independent, untreated mental illness becomes a huge problem. Look at eating disorders as an example: people typically see eating disorders as a feminine problem, but it's estimated that 25% of people with eating disorders are men. Yet only 10% of those in treatment for eating disorders are men, meaning "masculinity" has come to mean hiding faults beyond reason.

      As we discussed today, strict gender definitions harm both men and women. Just look at the comment section under The Mask trailer. Hundreds of commentors complain that The Mask is making boys "pussies" or causing the "feminization of America." So, being feminine is bad? Having compassion makes you more feminine, which makes compassion bad? The message this sends is simply that being a woman is bad. Media outlets like the magazine above perpetuate the ideal of traditionally masculine traits in men, suggesting that diverging from this ideal makes a man more female and thus worse. Glorifying hypermasculinity then not only harms men, but perpetuates sexism against women as well.

     The Mask is a great film that I highly recommend. I could easily talk about much more on this topic, so feel free to bring the discussion to the comments!
What it meant to be a man in 2015.

Spikeball: the American Pastime?

     If you've never heard of Spikeball, you've probably never spoken to most of the guys in our HISP class. Lately, it's been our obsession. After hearing about it at a youth group event, my associate Ben Schwartz and I knew we had to bring it back to McClatchy. The sport looks complex, but it's simple enough to figure out quickly. It has brought us many hours of joy, and I believe it may be among the most promising up-and-coming sports in America. I'd like to highlight a few reasons why Spikeball could be a legitimate professional sport.

     How to play Spikeball.

     Firstly, Spikeball is not a privileged sport. It requires no pricey equipment, uniforms, or club experience. The only things needed to play are a $60 Spikeball set and three other friends (or peers). This makes Spikeball a very egalitarian sport in that being rich doesn't necessarily mean being better. In Spikeball, it's a totally even playing field for who becomes the best. Isn't that part of the American dream?

     Speaking of the American dream, Spikeball in many ways represents American ingenuity. Spikeball became famous on Shark Tank, a reality show that lets entrepreneurs present their ideas to business tycoons to try to earn investments. Spikeball's success on Shark Tank shows what the American dream is all about - striving to succeed through hard work and ingenuity. A sport like Spikeball could become popular because sports fans love origin stories and Americans love innovation; Spikeball is exactly this combination of a cool origin story and innovation. 

     In addition, Spikeball combines the best qualities of some of the best sports. It requires the communication of tennis, the strength of football, the patience of golf, the strategy of basketball, the quick thinking of soccer, the speed of track. In a way, Spikeball is a microcosm of the good qualities of every sport, making it appealing to any athlete.

     Generally, people consider the American pastime to be baseball. If you look at this Bleacher Report article about why baseball is better than football, you'll see quite a few similarities between baseball and Spikeball. However, I believe there are a few areas where Spikeball has baseball beat. For one, Spikeball is most popular among college students. On the other hand, the average age of baseball's fan-base is estimated to be 50. Baseball is becoming less and less popular among young people, so a young demographic is exactly what a sport like Spikeball needs to create lasting popularity. Baseball's dwindling popularity is likely due to Americans' increasing fascination with fast-paced, action-filled sports. (This explains why football has arguably replaced baseball as America's favorite sport.) Its fast pace makes Spikeball exactly the type of sport Americans would love to watch. If nothing else, Spikeball is exciting. Would it not be fun to watch more of this being done professionally? 

     Will Spikeball overtake baseball as America's national pastime? Probably not. But I think it would be an excellent candidate. If you're curious about Spikeball, feel free to stop by the grass behind the D-Wing at lunch to check it out!

Snapchat Has a Lazy Marketing Team

     As I was flipping through a copy of People magazine (it's my mom's, I promise) looking for a print ad to write a post about, I eventually found a Lunchables ad that wasn't great, but good enough to settle for. By chance. however, I flipped to the back cover of the magazine before I started writing and found this:

     This is much more interesting than Lunchables. The entire back cover of the magazine was occupied by this: a yellow background fit with the recognizable Snapchat logo. No text, no brand name, no slogans. Seems lazy, but it's effective.

     An ad like this relies solely on reification. Objectively, the ad is simply the silhouette of a ghost on a yellow background. The ad's meaning comes from the knowledge that this shade of bright yellow is characteristic of the Snapchat app, and that the simple outline of a ghost is Snapchat's logo. In this way, the advertisement transcends its objective reality even without the use of text. Because this relies on the knowledge that this is what Snapchat's app looks like, the ad appeals to the need for affiliation. When one sees this ad (which may be confusing for those unfamiliar with the logo) and recognizes that it advertises Snapchat, he or she feels as if they are part of a special group that "gets" the ad. This makes them feel included by using Snapchat.

     But the majority of people who see this ad probably don't understand it. The target audience of People is young to middle-aged women who are interested in popular culture. That means the target audience of the advertisement is likely the same. However, only young women who already use Snapchat are likely to understand the ad. 

     What's the point of an ad if the only people who understand it are those who already use the product? The ad's lack of text probably leaves most readers asking questions. Middle-aged readers who see this ad may be compelled to look up the logo on their own or ask a younger relative to explain it to them, much like my parents did with me. This means that the target audience is actually middle-aged or older moms who read People because the ad relies on a younger, more up-to-date person to help inform the reader. The ad is thus an attempt to get older people interested in Snapchat. 

     It seems strange that a print ad with no words can have a message; but the implicit message of this ad is that consumers need to be informed on popular culture. Think about it: the ad only makes sense to those up-to-date on popular culture, and people not up-to-date are likely to look into Snapchat to become more informed. Whoever is familiar with pop culture benefits the most. 

     All this from a simple ghost on a yellow background. 

Political Discussions + Social Media = Fallacies

*The following is written with the express permission of Zoe Lackemacher*
   
     'Twas the evening of Wednesday, May 11th, and all was quiet on Instagram. The Bernie Sanders rally had come and gone two days before, as had the pictures people had posted of themselves and others at the rally. But one picture did not appear until Wednesday.
     Zoe, a HISP classmate of ours, posted a harmless photo of herself at the rally accompanied by the caption, "Not too late to research the candidates and really read into their views, it's our future at stake!!" If only she could have seen what would come next. One anti-Bernie comment led to another, which was followed by an anti-Trump comment, and suddenly all hell broke loose. As I write this, Zoe's post has received 232 comments, almost all of which are contributions to this hectic political argument. 
     As soon as I popped myself some popcorn and sat down to read through the fight, a thought occurred to me. It was something along the lines of: "Oh boy! A political argument over social media between teenagers who are somewhat informed about politics: look at all the fallacies!" In this post, I'll examine a few of the many reasoning fallacies I've come across in the comment fight. I'd like to maintain anonymity as much as possible, so I'll refrain from name-dropping those involved in the argument. For the most part, it was two students from Christian Brothers debating several members of the sophomore HISP class. 

Funny video about fallacies in a Democratic Debate.

• Circular Reasoning - Why not start at the beginning? One of the first comments from CB Guy #1 read, "Tbh all the candidates suck but I would rather have Trump over Bernie." In other words, because he likes Trump more than the other candidates, he likes Trump more than Bernie. The conclusion is stated in the premise.
• Red Herring - Later in the comment thread, someone accused Trump of being racist and misogynistic, to which CB Guy #1 responded, "I'd rather have a president who doesn't get us into more debt #feelthebern." While this may or may not be true, CB Guy #1 doesn't actually address the topic being presented to him. Instead, he diverts attention to Bernie Sanders' financial policies, a topic completely independent of Trump's social views. Way to avoid the topic, CB Guy #1.
• Appeal to Ignorance - Enter CB Guy #2. He argued for Trump's immigration plan by reasoning that illegal immigrants account for a large percentage of crime in the US. A fellow HISPster responded that this is because statistics suggest implicit bias in police and juries. CB Guy #2's response read, "That's an opinion. I don't know if you can actually prove they are biased unless you journey inside their minds." He argued that if implicit bias hasn't been proven to exist (which it has), it therefore doesn't exist. Bad move, CB Guy #2. Bad move.
• Ad Hominem - Where to begin? As you might guess with petty teen arguments, this comment fight is riddled with name-calling and attacks on character. Most of it (unfortunately) came from CKM students. CB Guys #1 and #2 were arguing that Bernie supporters just want free stuff and people should learn to "WORK themselves into that 1%," to which several McClatchy students pointed out that Christian Brothers, being a private school, requires some privilege to attend. That's a fair point, but it got a bit out of hand when a HISP student commented, "I thought with your private school education where you are taught of Christianity and goodwill you would be able to understand humanitarian politeness." This is an attempt to make the CB Guys' argument seem illegitimate, but in reality, it's little more than an insult. CB Guy #1 came back with a zinger: "Nobody respects you because of the pictures you put on social media." Because a girl's Instagram content has everything to do with her argumentation. Great point, CB Guy #1. 

     These are just a few examples from a fight that embodies many qualities of social media. I think this exchange demonstrates how easy it is to insult and debate people over social media whom you've never met. If this debate happened in person, it would probably last about five minutes. Behind the keys of a keyboard, it's so easy to throw around insults and make hasty reasoning fallacies without worrying about the consequences. Many thanks to Zoe's Instagram for an interesting piece of media.

What's up with My Blog Name?

     If anyone has been confused about the title of my media blog, be confused no further.
     My blog name references NBA player Metta World Peace, whose unique name not only makes a great play-on-words with "metacognition," but also has a surprising amount of relevance in critical thinking.

     This is Mr. World Peace. Formerly known as Ron Artest, World Peace is currently on the decline in his career. About 10 years ago, he was one of the NBA's elite defenders, winning Defensive Player of the Year in 2004, being selected as an All-Star the same year, and winning a championship with the L.A. Lakers in 2010. However, a series of recent injuries have pretty much made him an insignificant part of the league. 

     During his prime, however, Ron Artest (later to change his name to Metta World Peace) developed a reputation as one of the league's most aggressive and eccentric players. He was largely known for getting into fights on and off the court, including altercations like this elbow thrown at James Harden. What he is most known for is his role in "The Malice at the Palace," arguably the worst fight in the history of professional sports. With less than a minute left in a 2004 game between the Detroit Pistons and Artest's Indiana Pacers, a fight broke out between the two teams that escalated into an all-out brawl. Artest ended up chasing a drunk fan into the stands and punching him, earning him an 86-game suspension - the longest in NBA history. 

Behold the mighty power of alcohol and testosterone.

     After that game, "Ron Artest" became a name of infamy. The name itself developed a negative connotation and Artest became known as one of the league's most violent, even criminal players. This might help explain his strange choice in 2011 to change his name to Metta World Peace. "Metta" is a Buddhist word meaning "kindness" and "World Peace" is...well, world peace. If your name was synonymous with "criminal," wouldn't you prefer a name with as positive a connotation as "Metta World Peace"? 

     If his original name-change wasn't ridiculous enough, World Peace changed his name once again in 2014 to The Panda's Friend. (Not sure if his first name is "The"? Or "The Panda's"??) This was likely another attempt to create a more positive image for himself. After all, who doesn't love pandas? If you can be friends with the panda, you must be a pretty good guy. Compare the positive connotation of this name to the negative connotation of "Ron Artest." Ron Artest was the player who used to start fights, but The Panda's Friend is a good guy. 

     The Panda's Friend has since changed his name back to Metta World Peace, but his situation is a great example of the power of language and connotations. And now my blog name will hopefully make a bit more sense.

"Ferris" Is Awfully Close to "Ferrari"...

     Television and movies are no longer just entertainment. Now that nearly every American household owns a T.V., television programming and movies are now a link between advertisers and consumers. Madison and Vine marketing, or product placement, is the integration of advertising into T.V. programs and movies. It allows companies to subtly yet effectively market their products to target audiences.

     If you were paying attention in Mr. Wong's class last semester, you'll remember that he talked about Seinfeld quite a bit. One episode he brought up a few times was called "The Junior Mint." The episode includes a scene in which Jerry and Kramer visit a hospital to watch a live surgery demonstration. In the viewing gallery, Kramer starts eating Junior Mints, which he offers to Jerry. Jerry refuses the candy, but Kramer insists that he take one. Growing angry, Jerry slaps the Junior Mint out of Kramer's hand, and the camera follows it as it falls below to the operating table into....You can guess where. The humor of the situation helps to distract from the blatant use of Madison and Vine advertising. This episode's use of Junior Mints as the center of one of the plot lines makes it as much of an episode of Seinfeld as a cleverly-disguised advertisement. Brands & Films, a blog about product placement, writes of the episode: "It included all three types of product placement: the name of the brand was mentioned several times, the product was visible for a few seconds, and one of the main characters has even eaten the candies." 

     I haven't seen many episodes of Seinfeld, but I'm pretty amazed that there hasn't been more product placement like this. Think about it: the show aired for almost ten years, it had 180 episodes, and it earned a cult following - between 76 and 108 million people watched the show's finale! It was a perfect medium for advertising. If a product (like Junior Mints) appeared on Seinfeld, millions would not only see it but also develop a positive association with it. 

     Speaking of cult followings, what about the car in Ferris Bueller's Day Off? An entire scene is devoted to showing off the 1961 Ferrari 250 GT California. While Cameron talks about the car, the camera switches between shots of the tires, headlights, and it even settles on the Ferrari logo for a moment. The scene below isn't far from a two-minute Ferrari commercial. This is where target audiences come into play. Assuming the target demographic of Ferris Bueller is teenage boys and young men, this use of product placement makes total sense. What did teenagers in the '80s like more than MTV and sports cars? The image of two teenage boys stealing a shiny red Ferrari just screams, "You're a teenage boy - buy a Ferrari!" 

     Madison and Vine advertising allows companies to reach consumers through entertainment as much as possible. If you think about it, the only thing stopping advertisers from airing ads during T.V. shows is the shows themselves. Between programs, viewers are bombarded with advertisements, but then the ads have to stop so the program can resume. Product placement allows advertisers to overcome this inconvenience. Rather than buying airtime during commercial breaks, Junior Mints can slip in a reference to their product in an episode of Seinfeld. The same goes for movies, which contain no ads at all. Ferrari need not create a new ad campaign when they can simply make an appearance in Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Desperate to compete with other advertisers, companies have transformed T.V. and movies from entertainment to another medium for advertising products.

Loaded Language in Current Events

     Anyone who has seen newspaper headlines in the past few weeks knows that Brazil is a mess right now. The Summer Olympics are only a few months away, and a number of scandals involving President Dilma Rousseff and national oil company Petrobras have recently been uncovered, leading to the lower house's decision to start the impeachment process. The country is now divided between Dilma's supporters and her opponents, leaving the nation with a severe lack of leadership.

     The language used by various news outlets reporting Dilma's impeachment is loaded in different ways, depending on the outlet. In this post, I'll compare the loaded language found in The Guardian's article Rousseff Should Be Impeached, Brazil Congressional Report Recommends and an editorial from Forbes, Why Impeaching Brazil's President Dilma Is a Bad Idea.
     In The Guardian's article, the author uses words with negative connotations to subtly project a negative image of Dilma. For instance, the charges against Dilma are summarized as committing acts of "unconstitutionality, illegality, and fiscal irresponsibility." These words are somewhat vague, but convey heavy negative connotations. The author could have used more moderate language like something as simple as "Dilma broke some laws." However, the language used adds more severity to Dilma's situation by connoting reckless law-breaking. Similarly, the article says that Rousseff has been accused of "manipulating" budget records. A neutral word like "change" could have been used, but "manipulate" holds a more devious connotation. The author also uses the phrase, "Rousseff's chances of surviving," referring to Dilma's odds of remaining in office. This puts Dilma's situation into a "life or death" context. If she gets impeached, she will not "survive," as the author writes, which contributes to the severity of her situation. This type of extreme, negatively loaded language portrays Dilma in a negative light.
     Similarly, Kenneth Rapoza uses loaded language in his article for Forbes to project a negative image of others who would become more powerful if Brazil were to vote to impeach Dilma. By doing so, he argues that Dilma shouldn't be impeached (unless she's proven to have been involved in the Petrobras scandal) because the alternatives are worse. Rapoza explains that some of the politicians who would become more powerful are on a list of legislators being investigated in the same scandal as Dilma. One of his quotes is that "the foxes are guarding the chicken coop." This analogy uses the negative connotation of "fox" to project these politicians as sly and untrustworthy. When referring to the effect Dilma's impeachment would have on foreign investment, Rapoza uses negative words like "cut" and "lose" to convey the negative consequences of impeaching Dilma. Finally, Rapoza concludes by deeming Brazil's situation a "nightmare." While "problem" or "bad situation" would suffice, "nightmare" carries a strong negative connotation, helping to emphasize his point. Even though this article doesn't necessarily disagree with the other article, it uses more extreme examples of negative language to argue a different point.
     These are only two examples of how loaded language is used by news outlets. If you were to watch the same news story on both Fox News and MSNBC, you'd see tons of loaded language used to support or criticize political ideologies. This discussion of language reminds me of our discussion of Nigerian Oil and MEND last quarter. Some see MEND as a terrorist organization. Others see them as revolutionaries. The two words have roughly the same denotation, but very different connotations. When it comes down to it, language is a reflection of opinion, and one person's "terrorist" can be another's "revolutionary."

Why Don't They Make Neighborhoods Like They Used To?

     The other night, I was out at dinner with family at Tank House, a barbecue restaurant at J and 19th. (Good tater tots, mediocre food otherwise - but that's beside the point.) Across the street, I noticed a billboard advertising Curtis Park Village, the new neighborhood being built next to Curtis Park. The ad featured a panorama shot of Brownstone-style houses with the large caption, "Why don't they make neighborhoods like they used to?" The ad didn't stand out to me too much at first. But after considering it for a while, I started thinking, "Wow, that's a really white thing to say." If you look at the connotation of this slogan, you can see that this ad campaign has some deeper racist implications. Let me explain.
     Realistically, I'm not particularly informed on the politics of building Curtis Park Village, but I live in Curtis Park, just around the corner from the development, so I've been able to follow the debate over the development for some time. Planning the neighborhood has been a divisive process, with debates centering on what grocery stores to include, whether or not to build public park space, and even whether or not a gas station should be built. Race has been at the periphery of many of these debates. For example, some have pushed for higher-end stores like Trader Joe's to move into the neighborhood, while others advocate for more affordable stores like Save Mart. Because these more affordable stores are attractive to low-income families, some fear that building these stores will attract "the wrong crowd" to the neighborhood, likely meaning families that aren't white and upper-middle class.
     Curtis Park's history can help to explain the role of race in the building of Curtis Park Village. When Curtis Park was created, it was essentially a white-only neighborhood. Non-whites and minorities including Asians and Jews couldn't buy property in Curtis Park. This led to the creation of more diverse neighborhoods like Oak Park.
     Now think about the Curtis Park Village billboard in this context. The ad is trying to project a positive connotation onto the neighborhood. "Why don't they make neighborhoods like they used to?" appeals to feelings of tradition and neighborly values. Maybe it reminds you of your childhood home. In this context, the ad makes Curtis Park Village very attractive. In the historical context of Curtis Park, the billboard has a much different connotation. "Why don't they make neighborhoods like they used to?" You mean neighborhoods that didn't allow minorities? Neighborhoods that were solely white? This gives the billboard a far more negative connotation, drawing up memories of discrimination and intolerance. In this way, I don't think it's completely far-fetched to say that this ad campaign is just another subtle attempt to keep Curtis Park white.
     I am by no means an expert on Curtis Park's history or the politics of building Curtis Park Village, and I'm definitely not against Curtis Park Village. For the most part, I'm excited that the neighborhood is being built. The new stores and public park area will be great additions to the neighborhood. Still, I think it's important to consider the racial implications of what's going on. If you want another interesting example, look at the Curtis Park Village Website. The development is described as being "between the iconic neighborhoods of William Land Park and Curtis Park." True, Land Park is to the west of Curtis Park Village. But isn't Oak Park just east of it? It's interesting that they chose to use two of the whitest neighborhoods in Sacramento instead of the more diverse neighborhood of Oak Park. Is it possible that this is another attempt to preserve the "whiteness" of Curtis Park?
     This is just my view - feel free to comment and share yours!

Ms. Nish's Phone Policy and My Relationship With Media

     Every day in Ms. Nish’s class, someone is caught using their phone. She has told us she doesn’t necessarily consider the phones a distraction. Rather she feels that people have become too consumed in their electronic devices, and that the classroom should be a place reserved for face-to-face interactions. Her concern is that our impulse when presented with free time is to immediately fill it with our personal media sources.

     Ms. Nish has a point. I think we’d all be lying if we said we didn’t go on our phones in the few minutes before sleeping at night. I agree with Ms. Nish in that digital media has become somewhat of an impulse for our generation, much like what we’ve seen in Digital Nation. Does this necessarily make digital media and media in general bad? 

     Personally, the most obvious media exposure I get is to social media. Instagram and Snapchat are how I mainly communicate with people aside from face-to-face interactions. They also serve as effective ways to stay up to date on current events and sports, learn about topics of interest, and, admittedly, kill time. Aside from social media, my media exposure comes from watching Netflix series such as Arrested Development and The Office, reading news, watching YouTube videos (mostly educational, but sometimes cat videos), watching and reading about sports, reading a monthly issue of Runner's World when it comes in the mail, listening to music, and of course texting and emailing.

     In spite of the media with which we choose to have a relationship to follow our interests, there are other forms of media we involuntarily experience. The most prominent example is advertising. Each of the media outlets I listed have some type of advertising, particularly those on the Internet. Even though ads may not seem significant, they affect our values and understanding of the world in ways we don't realize. 

     Ms. Nish is right about our obsession with the media. I've definitely seen how common media outlets are in daily life, but the quality of our exposure depends on how we regulate our intake and what outlets we choose to expose ourselves to. My relationship with media is largely positive because I choose to make it so.