Fox Attacks

Though I'm not sure how, I started getting these e-mails from a group called "Fox Attacks" that, in the spirit of Michael Moore and Out Foxed, has become a self-appointed watchdog group for Fox News. Occasionally, they'll put out a video they produced which "rights" the wrongs of Fox News' coverage of political news. This is the latest installment focused on Barack Obama and what FA is calling a "smear campaign" being waged by Fox News.


I'm putting this up here not so much as a political statement but a great example of a counter-ideology. We've discussed ad nauseum how Fox News operates with a clear political agenda even though it bills itself as "fair and balanced" when it comes to reporting political news. Fox Attacks, in an attempt to call Fox News on its bias, employs a strong bias of its own. I notice it especially in the method of this video; they use all of the "methods" that Fox News often employs just to make the opposite case. So, I basically have to conclude that I can trust neither.

This fascinates me and makes me wonder whether or not there is a viable way to work against a clear ideology without completely discrediting the counter-balancing message. Fox Attacks wants to argue in the same manner as Fox News to directly show the ways in which Fox News is "smearing" Obama. However, in doing so, Fox Attacks just looks like the same ideological juggernaut simply espousing a different, but still potentially problematic, ideology.

How does one work against the machine without getting sucked into it?

Mr. Spock takes on Conventional Beauty

Talk about timely.

Leonard Nimoy sits down to talk with Steven Colbert about the problems with the way the idea of "conventional" beauty is formulated and sold.

Check it out and pay special attention to Colbert's commentary--even though it's sarcastic, it's incredibly insightful and critical:

Again, the discussion is aimed directly at girls...is this a good approach? The correct approach? And how do we feel about Leonard (Len) Nimoy discussing this? Could he have other interests than what he is saying? (Does he have a movie coming out or something?) Is what he talking about hegemony? And in that scheme, does he become an organic intellectual.

Thanks to your classmate Chris for passing this along--proving that we're truly on the cusp of things in this class!

Dove Campaign for "Real" Beauty

This campaign fascinates me. Especially given that we've been talking about the Marxian critiques of media, specifically the Frankfurt School and Althusser, I think it provides an interesting debate. Can Dove, which is undoubtedly in the business of beauty, define what *real* beauty is?

So, the Campaign for Real Beauty should be searched through carefully. While we watched the "film" in class, as I was sifting through the site, the actual ideology of the campaign seems to emerge for me. What is Dove's concept of "real" beauty and how does it mesh with what you necessarily think of as real beauty. In trying to answer that question myself, I started wondering whether I am able to develop an idea of my own of what *real* beauty is without using the references provided to me by Dove. Why is that so hard? Is the an effect of mass media or is it that *real* beauty really cannot be defined?

Making things even trickier is their new campaign, a contest for a "regular" woman who could win the new commercial ad in the campaign for real beauty. The finalists can be found here. How does this change the campaign...now we have "real" women producing "real" beauty...does this get us further away from the trappings of mass media or more deeply ingrained in them? Also check out the intro by Amy Brenneman, the celebrity version of a *real* woman.

What might Althusser say about all of this? What is the meaning of that which is not pictured in this campaign for real beauty and how might his analysis differ from that of Adorno and Horkheimer?

And then there's this video, part of the Campaign for Real Beauty:



I just get a sinking feeling watching these. While ultimately, they are supposed to clearly indicate an change in ideology about beauty, can we (and should we) buy into what this is selling, especially given that it is produced by a company who is selling beauty products. While our knee-jerk reaction may be to applaud Dove, does our doing so only serve to enforce a very specific kind of beauty (just one that doesn't support plastic surgery and pills)? What are these images of beauty missing? And if they're missing something, doesn't that mean that the new ideology is still problematic?

Media Journal #1: South Park--Savvy or Stupid?

I've been thinking both about the concepts of ideology and a critique of the media theorists who supported the notion that low culture actually served to "dumb down" the masses by allowing for a passive consumption of content that was deemed questionable both morally and intellectually. At the same time, I've been formally introduced to the phenomenon that is South Park, a show that premiered on Comedy Central to seriously mixed reviews; generally, the split was generational with kids finding it incredible and parents and religious types strenuously raising their eyebrows. As I watched episodes last night for the first time, through the tears of laughter rolling down my cheeks, I couldn't help but think that Cartman, Kenny, Kyle, and Stan might help to further my discussion of ideology and certainly allow me a chance to critique the ideas of particularly Leavis and Hoggart.

Generally speaking, I find the concept of ideology to be one of the more difficult ones to discuss; it's hard to examine your own life and identify, let alone analyze, the ideas and values you use to make sense of things. As Storey points out, several working definitions exist; the one I find most useful is ideology as the general set of values and ideas that form a kind of "world view" (the German word used by both Marx and Weber was Weltanschuung meaning literally "world view.") This definition takes us almost into the realm of what an individual might consider a "perspective;" I think the important thing to remember here is that ideology differs from perspective in that ideology often (and in my opinion most accurately) refers to a set of ideas and values that many use to make sense of the world. While everyone may be able to develop their own perspectives, once many people agree on certain ideas and values that dictate and inform their lives, a dominant ideology comes to exist. This, then, forms the basis for some kind of social control; the dominant ideology dictates the norms (or expected behaviors both formal and informal) of a given group.

If we think of ideology as a world view, then South Park immediately becomes a tool we can use to identify the dominant ideology. Because it touched a nerve with so many people who considered it *indecent,* we can use that to talk about what people actually consider decent. Taken together, those ideas and values that form our expectations about what is "good and decent" are an ideology.

So, how is South Park "indecent"? First, it features four kids who swear...a lot. So already, the vulgarity is an issue. (It's not how little kids should talk) They also break a lot of rules, show basic lack of concern for what their parents say, and talk about topics that we consider "taboo"--and they're 3rd graders. However, what seems most offensive to people is the juxtaposition of these kids in situations and discussing topics that little kids "shouldn't" talk about using "bad" words: overt "adult" sexuality (one episode is called "Proper Condom Use"), racisim (words openly known as racial slurs have been repeatedly used in the show while Kenny, who is mostly not understandable has been attributed as the character most likely to "say" something offensive), mocking of religion (Catholic, Scientology, and Evangelical officials have all spoken out against the show), in addition to questioning many celebrities by name (Tom Cruise and Michael Jackson most famously).

South Park prides itself on doing what is taboo; because norms dictate those behaviors, ideas, and values a collective will tolerate, creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone appear to play on some sense of popular ideology to create a biting social satire of life in Small Town, U.S.A. Thus, all of the "issues" people have with the show indicate what could be a world view dictated by religion (where any sense of morality or what is "right" and "wrong" would likely originate), notions of acceptable social relationships (racism, cult of celebrity, kid/parent/school relationships are developed from this based on a power or status basis), and certain understandings of what "normal" (constructions of race, gender, class, age, work, and so on) and "decent" (the matters of vulgarity, graphic sex talk, and mocking or defacing symbols that we strongly associate with something meaningful would arise here.) If we find ourselves balking at the show, it's content, or characters, it may be because our "worldview" is under attack; South Park may question our ideology.

Because of this and some of the repeating themes of this show (disabilities, sexuality, politics, racism, gay rights, death, censorship, political correctness and the environment to name a few), this show poses serious problems for the early media theorists who claimed that mass culture was a "dumbing down" of culture creating passive, stupid masses of people unable to think for themselves. Because they were responding to the media of their time, I'll cut these theorists a little slack--they never saw nor imagined social commentary via paper-cutout cartoons on television. However, today we hear echoes of this theme coming from the very people who reject South Park because of its content. While we might have concerns about the *form* of the media (the vulgarity, the "indecency" if we must), it seems almost impossible to deny that the social commentary within very accurately criticizes a worldview that, for many, creates a social reality of oppression and discrimination. This show is one of a handful daring to boldly point out a variety of social injustices, inconsistencies in government and "the establishment," and institutions that we often cannot or will not critique. This is a smart show shrouded in swear words and shocking storylines. It requires an informed and intelligent audience who, if paying attention, cannot help but walk away with some very serious questions. Even more important, those who come strictly for Cartman often walk away having been introduced to some new ideas about how social life may actually be. Parker and Stone prove again and again to be astute observers of social life giving us some serious social realities to think about. And that's not a project either for or producing uninformed, unaware "masses" who just "Blame Canada" for all their troubles.