Reality Television

Extreme Makeover Home Edition & Oprah

Gareth Palmer and Janice Peck both wrote articles about popular television shows and how they reflect events that are occurring in the United States. Palmer's is called "Extreme Makeover Home Edition: An American Fairytale." Peck's is entitled "The Anxieties of the Enterprising Self and the Limits of Mind Cure in the Age of Oprah."

Because Ty Pennington has enough help and resources to build houses for people who can't afford to do so themselves, he has power over them. Then, as Palmer expresses on page 40, money is no object to Ty. He and his crew don't seem to be interested in how much their projects would cost (page 40). Money doesn't appear to be as important to him as it would to the families he is building new homes for. Oprah also has power because she possessed enough money to build a school in Africa. As Peck noted on page 501, money was no object for Oprah, either. She also had "power" in the sense that she controlled what happened in her life because she followed "The Secret." When she discussed this "secret," she said, "It's something that I have really believed in for years, that the energy you put out into the world is always gonna be coming back to you" (page 498).

Palmer claims that Extreme Makeover reflects how community members have to depend on each other for help because the states are failing to provide its people with assistance (page 37). He listed a few examples of this problem occurring. In one case that he mentioned, "... a family had to watch their son die because ambulances and police refused to go into their neighborhood for fear of their lives" (page 38). In addition, gaps exist across the three social classes and some people aren't able to have nice houses (page 38). Peck discussed what is known as "The Secret" and the school (Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls) Oprah opened in Africa. On page 498, Peck wrote, "Just as the Leadership Academy students cannot blame society for their situation, those who embrace the law of attraction must also accept responsibility for their fate." In this sense, believers of "The Secret" feel that you won't be able to get help from anyone in society; you need to help yourself. This relates back to why Oprah built her school in Africa: society won't better itself or rid of problems such as apartheid on its own.

Palmer argues that, "In a sense, the Extreme Makeover Home Edition team represent the fluid upwardly mobile petit bourgeoisie against the time-worn virtues of proletariat. This divide between the classes ensures that the working class are always receptive and thankful for the 'good taste' bestowed upon them by the middle class" (page 38). He also mentioned how because this show helps families (which are valued by many people), U.S. citizens are going to respond positively to Ty Pennington and his helpers (page 39). He then went on to claim that by airing episodes, ABC upholds its reputation as being "socially responsible" (page 42). Peck claims that "The Secret" is something the middle class believes in (page 501). In this sense, Oprah can relate to this social class. At one point, Oprah decided founded a school in Africa because she wanted to educate young women. She spent a lot of money on this school, which some people didn't think she should have done. She stated, "I became so frustrated with visiting inner-city schools that I just stopped going. The sense that you need to learn just isn't there. If you ask kids what they want or need they will say an iPod or some sneakers. In South Africa, they don't ask for money or toys. They ask for uniforms so they can go to school" (page 502).

In class, someone mentioned that the houses that are built on Extreme Makeover are extremely valuable and would cost a lot of money to keep and maintain, and the property values would increase. Also, as Palmer said on page 40, "One of the most unusual forces about the programme for British viewers is the complete absence of cost. In contrast to many UK makeover shows, costs are never mentioned in Extreme Makeover Home Edition." He later went on to say, "It is only at the end of the show that we have any sort of opportunity to calculate the cost of this transformation, but by then we are too emotionally involved to make such calculations" (page 41). If families couldn't afford a nice house before Ty Pennington and his crew built them new homes, how would it be possible for them to be able  to afford to pay the bills, property taxes, etc. after the new houses were built? Who pays for the house? What happens if the families are struggling to pay for it themselves? Is it up to the community to help them with that? Also, Ty and his helpers always build people large, extravagant houses. By doing so, they're insinuating that money and extravagant things are important and can keep you happy. It's all about materialism. Why can't Ty build average-size houses for people? That way, it will be easier for the families to afford them. Additionally, why do they need so many fancy things? Why is living in such a big house so important? I bet Oprah would argue that the families who are featured on Extreme Makeover don't know what "The Secret" is and that they didn't "will themselves" enough to be able to afford or maintain the houses they used to have before Ty Pennington came along.

Media Education Foundation Video

Rich Media, Poor Democracy

According to McChesney, there are three "tiers" of the media industry. The first is made up of all of the most powerful companies (or as he called them, the "huge giants"). This includes business organizations such as Viacom, Time Warner, Disney, and Sony. The next consists of smaller organizations like Comcast, General Electric, and newspapers such as The New York Times and Tribune. The last includes companies that exist in towns and communities. 

McChesney talked about "the logic of corporate enterprise that flows from the top" and how this determines what viewers see. An example of this work being done would be the synergy that he mentioned. He gave an example about how if the workers Paramount Pictures produced a movie, they would probably utilize the companies that they own to advertise their work. He also mentioned cross-production, which includes making franchise that goes along with a movie that was released. This "logic" can also be seen every day when businesses such as Viacom, Time Warner, and Disney decide what television shows and movies they want to premiere to the public and what topics they decide to not write about. It can be seen in the control they have over smaller corporations: they can buy them out. For example, Disney demonstrated their monetary power about a month ago when they bought Lucasfilm.

McChesney claims that media is supposed to expose consumers to "...a garden-place of ideas in which the truth will win out and we'll have a healthy vibrant political democracy" (page 3). Unfortunately, this isn't happening because conglomerates have so much control. He later goes on to say that "...our media system is the direct result of government policies that created it" (page 6). The Federal Communications Commission is supposed to look out for the public and stand for what's best for the people. However, this commission does not have enough influence to be able to do this. Next, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was was designed to promote competition between businesses through deregulation. McChesney states "What we really mean by deregulation is simply regulation on behalf of private interests with no pretense of regulating on behalf of the public" (page 7). So, the public is being ignored and thought of as unimportant. Also, in order to live under a democracy, it is necessary for journalism to function actively. This is done by making sure those who are in control are completing their jobs in the most beneficial way possible. Then, there are questions regarding freedom of press. In other words, a decision needs to be made about who should have more power: the journalists or the businesses. In this case, the businesses do. There is clearly a lot of conflict which is made visible in the media. For example, Disney bought Lucasfilm. By doing so, they lowered the number of industries they have to compete with. Because competition is limited, viewers aren't being exposed to multiple messages or viewpoints. There were problems in the past (most recently, over the summer) with cable companies. DirecTV and Viacom had a hard time deciding what to charge their consumers. So, those who subscribed to DirecTV were unable to view several channels for a period of time.     

Mark Crispin Miller stated how media conglomerates figured out that in order to keep their viewers faithful, they need to show things that interest them and capture their attention. Sensationalistic stories are popular among the masses, so that's what is being aired. By doing this, not only do companies keep their viewers, they get to save money as well. McChesney said that many years ago, there were rules that prevented conglomerates from being able to join forces and buy out other businesses. Now, companies are able to do that if they want. He also stated that in countries other than the United States, a large variety of stories are discussed in the news. Their journalists function differently than ours. 

Ideologies

Ideologies in an Old Spice Commercial

The advertisement I am going to talk about can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owGykVbfgUE. The link to where I got the information about Old Spice from is here: http://oldspice.com/en-US/. 

Old Spice is a brand that was created by Procter & Gamble (P&G). There are many products that are sold under this brand: antiperspirant, deodorant, body wash, body spray, and fragrances. Several commercials advertising their body washes have been aired and are memorable because of the use of humor. Particular ideologies are dominant throughout the commercial I'm going to discuss.  

Stuart Hall discussed what ideologies are in an article called "The Whites of Their Eyes: Racist Ideologies and the Media" (which is found in the third edition of textbook called "Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Critical Reader," which was edited by Gail Dines and Jean M. Humez). He stated, "I am using the term ideology to refer to those images, concepts, and premises which provide the frameworks through which we represent, interpret, understand, and 'make sense' of some aspect of social existence" (page 81). He also claims that "...the media's main sphere of operations is the production and transformation of ideologies" (page 81). The second statement is particularly true, especially after looking at the Old Spice ad called "The Man Your Man Could Smell Like."

The commercial shows a sequential set of random activities performed by a man who uses Old Spice body wash. He repeatedly says, "Look at your man... now back to me." At one point, he says, "Sadly, he isn't me. But if he stopped using lady-scented body wash and switched to Old Spice, he could smell like he's me." Later on, he stated, "Where are you? You're on a boat with the man your man could smell like. What's in your hand? Back at me. I have it. It's an oyster with two tickets to the thing you love. Look again. The tickets are now diamonds. Anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice and not a lady." Based on these quotes, it is clear what ideologies are being reinforced: it is important for a man to smell good, he can't smell "like a lady," a man has to provide his "woman" with nice, expensive gifts, and you can achieve many things/do or have whatever you want/pursue your dreams (or, as stated in the commercial, "Anything is possible.") if men use Old Spice.

According to Hall (page 81), "...ideologies do not consist of isolated and separate concepts, but in the articulation of different elements into a distinctive set or chain of meanings." Whoever made this commercial is expressing the idea that it is "manly" to use Old Spice and it would be foolish not to use it. In this way, the creators are connecting masculinity to using this specific brand of body wash. By doing so, they're saying that using Old Spice fits into the "chain of meanings" associated with masculinity. Then, C. Wesley Buerkle wrote an article called "Metrosexuality can Stuff it: Beef Consumption as (Heteromasculine) Fortification." On page 88, he claims, "...meat connotes men's assumed dominance..." By claiming that "Anything is possible when your man smells like Old Spice" and showing that "your man" would be able to buy you tickets and diamonds, the writers of the commercial are saying that men who use Old Spice are dominant because they can afford and achieve whatever they want in a short amount of time without any problems. Next, Dafna Lemish wrote an article entitled "The Future of Childhood in the Global Television Market" (found in "Gender, Race, and Class in Media: A Critical Reader"). On page 359, he claimed, "A partial list of the critique of values identified in the forms of American television broadcast to children around the world includes heavy consumerism..." This Old Spice commercial is obviously encouraging consumerism. It's doing it in a way that convinces male viewers that they need to buy the body wash.  

Women and men are being represented in this commercial. Not only does this ad convince men they have to use Old Spice, it makes women believe that men need it, as well. If "their men" use it, they'll be able to go sailing and they'll be spoiled with whatever gifts they want. The way the ideologies are presented and the ideologies themselves are ridiculous because there is no way that using a certain body wash will get you far in life. You achieve your goals because of the time and dedication you put into your work. You have to earn things; everything isn't always given to you. Also, why should women have to rely on men to get what they want? There's no reason why they can't provide for themselves. Finally, deciding what a "womanly smell" is can be subjective: who decided what a woman is supposed to smell like and what a man is supposed to smell like? "The Man Your Man Could Smell Like" is clearly full of ideologies.        

Children's Programs

SpongeBob vs. Arthur: Television Show Products

Watching television has become an extremely prevalent activity. It seems like selling objects that are related to popular television shows has become a large trend. It also appears as though doing so wasn't as popular about 15 years ago. To help illustrate this point, two television shows and the products that are branded along with them are listed below.

SpongeBob SquarePants                                                           

• bedding                                           
• clothing
• books
• video games
• wallpaper borders
• clocks
• light switch covers
• pinatas
• keyboard stickers
• gummy candies
• backpacks
• lunch boxes
• CD-Rom computer games
• birthday candles
• sponges
• bathing suits
• towels

Arthur 

• CD-Rom computer games
• books
• dolls

As these lists show, there is a huge difference in the amount of products that are/were branded by these programs. Over the summer, viewers were able to watch new episodes of SpongeBob on Nickelodeon. I watched Arthur on PBS when I was about 5 or 6 years old. Both shows are branded by two of the same kinds of products: CD-Roms and books. It is clear that the types of products made that relate to children's shows has increased steadily. 

All of this branding relates back to spectacular consumption. Matthew P. McAllister wrote an article entitled "'Girls With A Passion For Fashion': The Bratz Brand as integrated spectacular consumption." On page 246, he wrote, "Watts and Orbe's application of Debord to popular advertising campaigns is also valuable for understanding coordinated merchandising and licensing campaigns which aggressively use a combination of media to disseminate large-scale and strategically integrated selling messages, hence the term 'integrated spectacular consumption'." Children see ads for the products listed above whenever they watch a television program. They could see the same commercial with a certain piece of merchandise being advertised multiple times throughout the half an hour or hour long program they watch. If they watch television longer than that, they could see many of the same commercials several times. When you're constantly exposed to a certain ad or message, it's hard to forget it. Also, when kids see that their friends or peers own a certain commodity, there is a chance that they're going to want it, too. In this sense, companies have an indirect way of exposing their consumers to their products. 

McAllister also claimed that "...spectacular consumption is intensely ideological, elevating the commercial and the promotional as authentic popular culture, which bleeds a consumption message over to less commercially oriented content forms" (page 246). On that same page, he also stated "...Goldman argues that advertising applies symbols of feminism in its products to women, and often implies that commodities can provide feminist achievement: purchasing products will empower women." In other words, corporations are trying to convince children that consuming is the cool and right thing to do. Programs and companies try to appeal to customers from the time they start watching a certain television show up until the consumer is no longer interested in the show or products. This could be until the child is either in his/her early or late teens. Companies are clearly very powerful and extremely influential.       

Thoughts & Interpretations

Erykah Badu: Window Seat Controversy 

Erykah Badu decided to be bold and daring while creating a music video for her song Window Seat. It was viewed by several people; many responded to it negatively. Peoples' responses can relate back to articles written by Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams. The way viewers reacted and the way Badu made her video are evidence that what Hall and Williams say about culture and sending and receiving messages is true.

In an article on the Daily Mail website, Badu was quoted saying the following about her video: "I tied it in a way that compared the assassination one would go through after showing his or her self completely. That's exactly the action I wanted to display." In other words, her nudity was part of her message. Some people thought the fact that she took off her clothes was offensive; others didn't like the fact that it was filmed where President Kennedy was shot. In the article "Encoding, Decoding," Hall said that "an event must be a 'story' before a communicative event" (page 508). By filming where she did, Badu was able to create a story, and therefore, create something for people to discuss and respond to. She also helped give her story a little historical context and made a connection to the message she was trying to deliver. That being said, if she didn't film her video in that area, it wouldn't have conveyed as much meaning as she wanted it to. Something similar can be said about Kennedy being shot: if he wasn't killed, she wouldn't have had as much context for her video. The location also gave her video more meaning. As Hall said, "If no 'meaning' is taken, there can be no 'consumption'" (page 508). The way people responded is connected to how they interpreted the video.    

According to Williams' article "The Analysis of Culture," "three general categories in the definition of culture" (page 32) exist. One of them is called the documentary. He wrote, "Then, second, there is the 'documentary', in which culture is the body of intellectual and imaginative work, in which, in a detailed way, human thought and experience are variously recorded." Badu's video falls under this category because she expressed how she felt about a certain subject in video format. Williams then went on to say, "The analysis of culture, from such a definition, is the activity of criticism, by which the nature of thought and experience, the details of the language, form, and convention in which these are active, are described and valued" (page 32). This relates to the certain remarks that were made about this video because critics didn't like the way Badu decided to express herself and where she decided to do it.

On page 35, William claims, "Thus art... can be seen as expressing certain elements in the organization which, within that organization's terms, could only have been expressed in this way." Movies and videos, like Badu's, are considered forms of art. Although some people might not agree, maybe Badu decided to create the video the way that she did because there wasn't another adequate way to convey what she thinks and how she feels. Then, taking off all of your clothes and walking around naked in public is clearly something that is frowned upon. Since Badu decided to ignore this while filming, she disregarded what Williams describes as the "social character" on page 36: "The social character - a valued system of behavior and attitudes - is taught formally and informally; it is both an ideal and a mode." Based on the criticisms Badu faced, one can conclude that viewers were upset that Badu didn't conform to this character while recording. Reading about the ways some people responded to Badu's video put Hall's and Williams' reading into perspective.