More iPhone

There’s a new iPhone gadget out. Or, at least new to me. I ran across the commercial for it while watching Saturday Night Live with my roommate. This new gadget is called audio recognition. Don’t know what song is playing? Don’t know who sings it? Audio recognition is for you. Apparently all one needs to do is hold the iPhone up to the speakers playing the song and poof! On the screen are the song title, the artist, and the album—everything you need to find it on iTunes and buy it.

Sounds to me like a great way of boosting the already high use of iTunes. Advertisement within company products? Low cost, high profit. But beyond that this new gadget, and the iPhone itself for that matter, seem to emphasize the directions a lot of media has been taking. Look at everything the iPhone can do: take pictures, record videos, play music, surf the internet, and identify songs, to name a few. Features like voicemail, texting, and basic calling are secondary in the advertising, if present at all.

What does it say about a society when a phone, the basic function of which is to communicate with others, is not even noted in an advertisement?

Here’s a communication tool—a phone—which has lost its natural function as a communication tool by the addition of the myriad of gadgets and features it offers. Arguably an iPhone is much more than a phone now; it’s a symbol, a marker of status. A basic phone isn’t ‘good enough’ anymore? We need something that functions in the way the iPhone does?

16 Ways to Watch

Some thoughts on the new turns music has taken.

A few years back music artists started using new media outlets when releasing new material. R&B singer Omarion joined forces with entertainment network BET in 2006 to release his new single Entourage. Later the single would be shown on the BET hit show 106 and Park. This was first time a song had been released exclusively as a ringtone. And in a landscape where artists and bands change in and out too frequently to put down any turf or make a name for themselves, releasing a new single in such a way was bound to turn some heads.

In 2005 The Decemberists decided to release their new music video, 16 Military Wives, using BitTorrent, a client program for a massive Internet filesharing community (much like peer-to-peer programs such as Napster and KaZaA.) Within the first few days 16 Military Wives had logged more than 1,700 downloads.

MTV and VH1, channels that traditionally played mostly music videos, are now cluttered with reality and celebrity shows. There’s hardly space for music – especially not from independent artists. And if a band hasn’t sold a massive amount of records, forget it. Rotation on one of these shows is impossible. That’s where BitTorrent came in. BitTorrent provided a way for The Decemberists to efficiently get out their video without paying a lot of money for bandwidth. BitTorrent is also more reliable than a corporately owned TV channel.

And for those asking so what?

1 . Media is giving artists more options for distributing their work. The Decemberists didn’t have to go through a major record label to get their video out. This means that independent artists and small time labels that haven’t been bought out by bigger companies do stand a chance and can get heard, difficult as it may be.

2 . Easier access. Why wait for a song to come on the radio or the TV? Just download it. Order the ringtone. In our fast-paced society this is highly appealing. No waiting, just instant results.

3 . There is no middle person—power and access are in the hands of the people. The theory of an active audience suggests that people seek out media in a way that appears and feels unique and independently-minded, and thus comfortable (not just a face in the crowd, so to speak). However, with six major conglomerates essentially dominating the channels through which media can be found, these choices are probably less unique and independently-minded than we believe them to be. BitTorrent was created by people who use filesharing programs. It is sustained as much by the creators and distributors as it is by the consumers, as opposed to companies whose spokespeople will never even use the products they endorse.

What this means is people do have agency, they do have power and say over the type of media they consume. The channels may be different and people may have to do some more searching, but this means that an audience who is actively searching out independent or non-mainstream music can get it.




And Omarion’s Entourage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V7XX8Qjcdk

To Save, or to Spend--that is the Question

Just the other day I read an article in The New York Times about the goings on at Wall Street. It wasn’t the headlining article, but it did make front page. The article started by informing readers that while Wall Street is no longer at the brink and confidence is returning, the American people should now be concerned with how little they are spending. It is acknowledged that in the last few years people have spent as much 91% to 99% of their yearly incomes, and thus need to begin saving for retirement or to pay off debts. Yet the article still insists that if people change their spending behavior too quickly the economy will take another downturn.

A few weeks back on the stock market, the Dow Index was down by several hundred points. Given this alone I can agree that the economy is indeed in a slump. What I cannot understand is why the media— The New York Times —is protesting when people intelligently and rationally make the decision not to spend almost the entirety of their incomes. Everyone needs fallback money in case the worst should happen and no one will have fallback money if the entire paycheck is spent.

Certainly the economy is hurting, though I can’t help but wonder if some of the commotion about the economy and the stock market is largely agenda-setting. The more people read about and hear about the economic downturn, the more they will worry. Perhaps a side of effect of this worry is Americans suddenly saving more than they have in recent years. If media is indeed trying to reverse, or at least slow, this ‘new’ notion of saving, it seems to me all that’s happening is a reinforcement of capitalistic ideals.


If any of you are interested in checking out the article yourself, take this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/12/business/economy/12leonhardt.html?_r=1&sq=buying%20binge%20slams%20to%20halt&st=cse&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&scp=1&adxnnlx=1226638667-CkFeueC5DEeNHvcA/ypqhw

Or go to The New York Times website search it out manually: Buying Binge Slams to Halt by David Leonhardt.

Insubstantial Media

This is a post to say, seriously? And, what? And also, why?

Last night I was out buying groceries and as I was standing in the checkout line it occurred to me that every single magazine flanking me was either about fashion or make-up, celebrity gossip, or TV soap operas. The more I thought about it the more I realized that this is the majority of what I see in the media. I have to actually search out substantial news.

Now, I know, I know, all stores stock those type of magazines in the checkout isles in hopes of an impulsive, last minute purchase. And I know it’s not difficult to turn the TV to CNN or to type Ms. magazine into a Google search or pick up The New York Times or the Women’s Press newspapers. What bothers me, though, is how readily available some media is in comparison to other media. The Women’s Press doesn’t show up everywhere, and neither does Ms. magazine. Fluff magazines show up tenfold. So, why?

To me it seems that the most widely read publications and most widely watched channels keep people starved for information. I wonder how many of these fluff magazines and fluff channels covered the law allowing same-sex marriages in Connecticut on Wednesday, November 13. How many covered the delayed anti-abortion law in Oklahoma or the release of Esha Momeni, a feminist activist, from an Iranian prison?

I know that in a study McQuail, Blumler, and Brown found diversion to be the leading reason people used media. Diversion from daily routines, current situations or problems—perhaps even a diversion from ‘hard’ news itself. Perhaps diversion is the reason for readily available mass amounts of fluff media. But perhaps it is to reinforce hegemony and the status quo. Or perhaps because the media is supported by the corporate business world it in turn supports that system by creating and enforcing cultural structures and expectations. If certain issues are hidden, or at least not as readily accessible, and only certain kinds of media can boast easy access, this creates a kind of social conformity. With commercially-funded media there is little room for critical appraisal and little room for change. Maybe the reason there is an abundance of fluff magazines and a lack of substantial news sources is not one reason at all, but a mix of social control, social conformity, hegemony, the statues quo and capitalism. After all, media does maintain the role of a gatekeeper.

He Doesn't Want What?

Let’s take a look at Cosmo magazine’s website. It’s one of the most—if not the most—widely read women’s magazines and it boasts a new representation of women. Now it’s online, accessible to everyone. And what are the main links on the pages? There’s ‘Sex & Love,’ ‘Style & Beauty,’ ‘Hot Guys,’ ‘Celeb Style,’ and ‘You, You, You.’ And under those links there’s a myriad of subtopic choices.

The first headline article that flashes across the site asks, ‘He Doesn’t Want Sex?’ and continues on to explain to the desperate reader five reasons he is uninterested. One doesn’t need to even read the article to see the same tired stereotypes at play. There’s the confusion of a man not wanting sex—because of course all men always want sex all the time. Media and popular culture make it almost taboo for a man not to want sex all the time. If media didn’t perpetuate this stereotype, why would anyone find it necessary to write and then to read an article about the hidden reasons a man didn’t want sex? If it didn’t, perhaps people wouldn’t balk at the idea of a man not wanting sex.

Back to those main links at the top of Cosmo’s website page: ‘Sex & Love,’ ‘Style & Beauty,’ ‘Hot Guys,’ ‘Celeb Style,’ and ‘You, You, You.’ Again, same tired stereotypes. Here are all the things women are expected to be interested in. Unfortunately, this list doesn’t exceed men, beauty, or clothes. Again, the media is making, forming, and maintaining the idea of a perfect woman. And ladies, if you’re not preoccupied with men, clothes, and beautifying and feminizing yourself, probably you should sort out your priorities. That’s the message. For as much as Cosmo totes its depiction of fun, fearless, independent women, the women on the website and on the pages of the newsstand magazine fit the stereotypes out there exactly. What Cosmo is selling is a false sense of empowerment.

Although this isn’t just Cosmo. There’s a surprising lack of women’s magazines out there that tackle issues beyond men and make-up. And magazines like Ms. or Bitch certainly aren’t selling nearly as many issues as something like Cosmo is. Media perpetuates and reinforces stereotypes so completely and so well that often people stay within these pre-molded frames, or don’t realize there are other options.


For further reading, some links:
Cosmo: http://www.cosmopolitan.com/
Ms.: http://www.msmagazine.com/
Bitch: http://bitchmagazine.org/

5 Friends

This is a video I was shown a few weeks before the election:



Granted it’s another election advertisement. Granted I mute campaign commercials and skip over campaign ads. Granted it’s a group of young A-list celebrities endorsing the message. (And really, celebrities?)

But I like this video for a couple reasons:

1 . It’s nonpartisan!

2 . It’s true! Can anyone validly argue that one vote doesn’t count?

3 . It’s well done.

And finally…

4 . It’s marketed toward the age group least likely to vote. And with this generation hooked into the Internet, what better medium than YouTube?

Media entertains, sells, and informs. The video’s ensemble of A-list celebrities entertains. It informs potential voters of the need to register, polling places, and the importance of voting in a way that sells ‘cool’ to this generation which breathes celebrities and technology. YouTube is a perfect venue to reach the youth who are plugged into the internet for hours a day.