|
Mass Media Mind Control
3 hours/day of tv =
3 hours/day of radio = 3 hours/day of exposure to billboards and product advertising = 3 hours/week of movies = 3 hours/week of magazines/newspapers = 3 hours/week of commercial Internet = 3 hours/week of talking about media subjects = the stats are no mystery. add to or subtract from the above. arrive at your own numbers. thousands of hours each year immersed in media. living in it. not in the world. when not attending directly to it, we replay it in our heads. rehearsing movie roles, tv characters. thinking about them. fantasizing. fixated on them. pop stars. celebrities. rock and roll idols. supermodels. news anchors. people in ads. trying to look like them. trying to act like them. repeating their words to ourselves. thinking their thoughts. we like to believe we can resist their hold on us. we'll explore the subliminal issues later. for now just look at the surface. look at what's obvious. |
Try 6 hours a day of video games, 1 hour of tv, and about 3 hours a week of internet... no radio, I only listen to CD's. Most of my advertising comes from driving, and being deluged with thousands of bilboard, storefront, and other types of advertising, none of which I need or would use.
|
So what you're saying is we're all just a bunch of puppets! :D
|
sixate, I'm not saying that, yet.
I personally never put it that way, but I know folks do infer it from the things I do say. What I'm looking for first - before I introduce detailed evidence of how we are manipulated daily - is for us to examine our lives, our involvement in media, and the nature and quantity of the messages that pass through us. Finally, I'd like us to consider how these messages may be influencing us. It's my impression that there is a lot of denial going on. People like to believe they think for themselves. |
ARTelevision, do you think for yourself?
|
While I agree that the sheer quantity of time we spend absorbing media can have an impact on our lives, I'm a bit skeptical about a lot of the research on media effects (Watching violent media makes us more violent, etc.)
|
CSflim
Great question! I try very hard to do that. Do I succeed? No, because it is not possible to think for oneself in the conventional sense. I believe it's important not to be deluded. With my conscious mind, I pose questions about thinking. I use my thoughts against themselves because I do not trust them. What I am able to do is to stop all thinking. That's a hard-earned skill. I spent a lot of years working on it. When I am being myself I am not thinking thoughts. When I am thinking, my thoughts are the type of thoughts that pose questions. One of the most frequent questions I ask myself involves this topic. How much of my thinking is controlled, influenced, manipulated by media? My own personal answer is most, maybe ALL of it. |
Does reading books count? I read probably 40+ hours a week, anything from stephen king to stephen ambrose.
MB |
Art, I think I know what point you're trying to make. We are all infuenced by media and our environment. There's no way around it. Some people try harder than others to stray in a different direction. Easier said than done though. Let's face it. How many of us are actually that much different than our parents? We are all a product of our environment. I don't have a problem with that.
|
Quote:
More generally, do you think that that the media plays a bigger role in the lives of TFPers versus the average person? |
Media helps us learn, understand, and open our eyes to the world. While it has its faults, there are still positive things that media gives us.
|
looking at what's obvious.
occasionally, for a moment at a time, pay attention to your thoughts. how would you describe them? ordered? rational? do they sometimes seem to be a big jumble of adolescent rambling, low-level bitching, self-criticism, obsessive-compulsive spontaneous repetitions of pieces of previous thoughts, parts of old scripts, generally negative self-image-wise? what could be causing this? many hundreds, sometimes thousands of commercial messages a day enter our minds. do we have nearly that many ordered, edited, professionally produced personal thoughts in a day? do ordered, edited, professionally produced, manipulative commercial messages seem more coherent than our normal thoughts? imagine one's self-image being molded from an early age by commercial messages, bits of songs, lines from movies, etc. one's self-image is a pretty deep part of oneself, wouldn't you say? how about what we think of others? does what we think of others seem affected, colored, influenced by commercial messages of what is the ideal way to be? do the commercial representations of the ideal way to be seem to affect our self-image as they do our judgement of others? how about what we think of the world and our place in it? affected, influenced by commercial messages? |
now I'm not sure if I ever have had an original thought.........
|
This is fascinating, ART, though I disagree with your premise that it's the media that gives us the disempowering quality to our individual thoughts and interpretations.
That voice in our heads ("What voice?" it might have just said for some readers) is negative, bitchy, critical, repetitive, and generally unhelpful, I agree. But what is it THERE FOR? Evolutionarily speaking, it MUST serve a purpose, otherwise we wouldn't have it. I think it's part of a self-protection mechanism that's deeply wired into each and every one of us. A simple demonstration is: what would that voice say if you thought to fire up a burner on the stove and hold your hand on it for say ten minutes or so? Just think about that for a second. That voice gets real loud, doesn't it? "Oh, that'd be bad. I'm not going to do that! I'd get hurt! This is a stupid example anyway! What point is this guy trying to make?" Consider that ALL of that is because the "it" in the back of your head ALREADY KNOWS what will happen if you put your hand on the stove, and it'll go to ANY length to keep it from happening, including rationalization, begging the question, self-criticism, and character assassination. And when it comes to hot stove burners, we WANT that mechanism in place! It's looking out for us! It's appropriate! That voice is what keeps you from leaning out too far off the edge of the Grand Canyon or from jumping from building to building. It keeps you safe, just as it was designed to. Problem is, we operate like it's the TRUTH. And then we apply that same mechanism to our relationships with other people and to what we believe about ourselves. All that negativity and carefulness and bitchyness keeps us isolated and safe, and at the same time costs us affinity, joy, and love in our relationships and our lives. In short, I don't believe it's the media doing this to us. I believe we're doing it to ourselves. |
I think it's impossible to know how much of our thoughts are affected by advertising or how much of our world outlook is warped/formed by cable news outlets.
I also think that original thought is not a completely positive result. Whatever ideas you communicate have to carry a certain degree of familiarity. And I think more people than you'd believe actually just settle for fitting in. It's the artist's job to adventure into wierd and woolly places, while the consumer is mainly concerned with things like financial and domestic stability. So the more original the artist's thought, the less likely he'll be able to get it across. And just because the thought is original doesn't mean it's useful. Not neccesarily. |
ratbastid
that's a great way to move the discussion forward. I agree with you. I would add that because we are made this way, media operate by exploiting these natural mental processes. They have always been exploited by those who wield power. It is the weakness inherent in human nature that makes us vulnerable isn't it? |
I notice the battle inherant in the way you're speaking about it, ART. Exploited, power, weakness, vulnerable.... It's clear you see this as an assault on something. The freedom of your mind?
I'd say there's nothing to defend. Our internal "process" will use anything it can to disempower us and turn us into negative, whining, homebodies. I think for some people it's louder than for others. For sure, though, you'll be thinking on auto-pilot whenever you're <i>not</i> thinking on auto-pilot, media or no. There may be environments that are more conducive to the no-brain state you mentioned earlier. Being in nature, for instance, it's easier than being in Times Square. Could be that media and advertising has an impact there. |
It is pretty obvious what certain sections of the media are trying to do. I hope everyone here has heard of Rupert Murdoch(sp) boasting about his "capabilities".
The media is not about reporting. You can't even take them seriously for factual-reporting anymore. It's more than a spin. Almost sickening. Thank god there is Google news. balances out things nicely. Can't remember when was the last time I watched "experts" on TV. That's probably a good thing. |
ratbastid, yes we see eye to eye, thanks.
Well, this is all by way of re-introducing some interesting research I've been doing in the area of how exactly some of this media mind control may work. I'll be posting that stuff here soon. Thanks! |
This is one of the more depressing threads I've read in awhile cause I really believe people are being led around by their wallets.
I also believe that journalism has significantly declined in quality over the past several decades. This is because, instead of striving for an understanding on the topic being reported on, journalists instead sensationalize tidbits and half-quotes to arrive at a piece. The pieces are no longer point-counter-point, but seem to have a real agenda to them. This scares me. I am also surprised how much media members, that call themselves journalists, have become so eager to be in the story, rather than letting it speak for itself. However, with the mass-media thing, people subject themselves to the stream. Some nice posts about reading here, and even time spent on the internet in places like this removes you from the stream. If you can't remove yourself from it and therefore think cause you don't drive a Lexus and look like the male model on tv that you are a loser, well, you are a loser. And worse yet, if you feel you need a Pepsi cause some 18 year old hussy is pushing it, or you can't form your own opinion on an issue cause Rush Limbaugh says its another way, then your helpless. Each person has the ability to turn off the stream. |
oane, good to have you on board. I hope the rest of the stuff in this thread holds your interest also.
Johnny Rotten, good point there about familiarity of thought being necessary to social communication. I do agree. Where I take this, however, is toward an excursion into our manipulabilities. I hope it will be info-taining ! |
I know for a fact it works, too.
In the late '60s there was a store in Philadelphia, "Krass Brothers' Men's Store". Their commercials were short, loud, slapstick, cheap and incredibly stupid. Yet here it is, 35 years later, and whenever I think about suits I can hear "Krass Brothers' Men's Store" screaming at me. |
Well i watch about 2 hours of TV a week. But use the interenet constantly and game/watch anime constantly... does that make a difference?
|
ART do you think its a bunch of microcosms in an ocean of opportunity? Or perhaps microcosms that accept the fact they exsist under a macrocosm in which there is no going against?
http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle1271.htm |
Ultimately, I think mass media just gives the masses what they want, rather than controling them. Before tv became so popular people had, what were they called? oh yeah, books. Which, for me, are far more influential than a television show. I get caught up in a good novel and relate to the characters in a way that is just not possible with tv.
So in my opinion, people (who read) are probably more influenced by their books, than by tv, and influenced in the same ways. |
arael, as I hope becomes more clear, the best feedback on this stuff comes from ourselves. I'm really asking the questions that I ask myself. How much does this stuff really affect us?
As far as I am concerned, the effect is total. The way I see it, this stuff replaces our thoughts. |
Here's a start toward a controversial sub-topic.
We'll start it in a fun way... Check out the pic and tell us what you see. http://www.artelevision.com/subs_tfp/subflowers.jpg |
this is unrelated to the above picture... but it's an example of how the media influences...
i am a child of the "wonder years"... i was raised with television as my babysitter... my best friends and role models were the cast and crew of The Brady Bunch, Gilligan's Island, Leave It To Beaver, Little House on the Praire, A Family Affair, The Courtship of Eddie's Father, I Dream of Jeannie, etc. etc. the list could go on and on and on... of course, in my child's eyes, i did not see the characters as actors and actresses... they were REAL people... and i compared myself and my life to theirs.... they were the "rule" in which i lived by... that said, there was a Diet Pepsi commericial that started in the late 70's... i can still here the music in my head... "Diet Pepsi just one calorie, now you see it,now you don't" ANYWAY... i was a young teenager... and body image needless to say was a large issue in my life... the model in that Diet Pepsie commercial wore a swimsuit that was the white equivalent the the infamous red "Baywatch" bathing suit... i wanted to be that girl... i needed to be that girl... in the months that followed, that commerical, as well as every magazine article i could find with a "perfectly" shaped, scantily clad model became my "grading key" so to speak... i contanstly compared myself to those images, truly believing that those pictures... those beautiful women with flawless bodies were the NORM... that was what i needed to strive toward... they were contact reminders of my inadequacies... and thus, i spent the next 15 years of my life in eating disorder HELL. now don't get me wrong... eating disorders are complex... and i certainly don't blame a single Diet Pepsi commercial for my eating disorder as a whole... but the influence of the media... and the power it had in my life at that time... GREATLY effected my self perception... not only in the ways i should LOOk... but in ways i should act, feel, and pretty much BE as a person... i believe, that the media as a whole, greatly effects both our conscious and unconsious mind. i am an avid NO-CENSORSHIP supporter... and i love the way in the which the mass media has brought this vast world closer together in the past few decades... but as so many people, young and old alike, are encompassed by the ever growing presence of the mass media in our every day lives... i would like to see more accountability... more realistic representations of people in general... *kicking my soap box back under desk and sitting down with a Diet Pepsi* *smirk*... some things die hard... |
well with what the FCC is doing to change ownership of the TV stations..it can only get worse...
oomm |
Thanks for your comments.
This thread originally appeared early in v3. the discussions ranged from dismissal of the material presented to downright alarm! My intention is for us to consider these submissions and our reactions to them in the light of our contemporary socialized behaviors and thoughts. |
http://www.artelevision.com/subs_tfp/ginsub.jpg
This image bears a striking similarity to the previous one. I see the same thing when I look at them both. Do you? |
Quote:
A really good example is to look at the advertisements of the SUVs and Marlboro cigarettes. Those were the ones that defined the product and sold the lifestyle to the buyer without all the headache of actually living the lifestyle. thanks for reviving this article. |
Thanks, cyn.
These images are created with the purpose of grabbing our vulnerabilities and manipulating us. That's the best way I can describe the mission of advertising. The first image a few posts above probes the perceptual doorway through which multiple messages may enter our minds. The same embedded word appears in the second image (The Gilbey's Gin ad). Say the word...if you see it. |
saw the word right away in the first picture... (haven't said it because i hate to ruin it for people who are still trying to see it )
can't seem to find it in the Gilbey's Gin Ad... did you know that that very word is "accidentally-on-purpose" constructed within the animation in the Disney movie the Lion King?... Simba flops down in exasperation (before he heads back to pride rock)... and a cloud of dust swirls above his head... before the dust cloud disappears... the word is extremely obvious... IF you're looking for it of course... ... even Disney is not immune... it's everywhere around us... makes you wonder doesn't it? |
~springrain,
check the ice cubes... ...in the glass. ;) |
the word is sex, but i dont see it in the icecubes
|
ART... i am assuming it is vertical... and the E is the most clearly identifiable letter?
those always take me a while... i can never see the "picture within a picture" either... *chuckle*... must be AGE. |
It's funny.. I walked across the room to try to see if I could find the 'hidden image' in the first pic, and I couldn't, so I sat down again and I saw it immediately! Heh... Then the second pic was easy once I knew what to look for.
|
I'm fascinated by subliminal advertising and commercial mass marketing. I believe that the sheer amount of advertising that the population is exposed to is creating an homogenous society, where everyone looks the same, does the same, and spouts off the same lame catch-phrases and slogans.
I don't believe that mass media can force you to do anything, but by constantly bombarding your mind it can certainly persuade you to change it. I also think all advertising preys on the personal insecurities of its' demographic. But is the mass media simply exploiting innate personal insecurities or are the personal insecurities created by mass media? |
good stuff, thanks all!
here's a little "graphic" ad with a message or three... what do you see going on here? http://www.artelevision.com/subs_tfp/subfleetbank.jpg |
is that dude foregoing sex for a book?
|
Books are always better than no eyed, out of focus, slutty dressin girls.
But seriously, I dont see anything. Her shirt looks kinda lifted over one of her tits, but other than that....zip. |
http://www.artelevision.com/subs_tfp/subfleetbank.jpg
The guy looks pretty anxiety ridden. Here he is, booking down hard for some purpose. Whatever it is, the implication is that he hasn't yet "made it" - accomplished his goal in life. He looks pretty concerned. But he is almost there. The universal goal for guys is presumed to be to get a home for him and his girl to start a life together. The pressure is on. The girl's strap is down on her dress, she's breathing heavily, and she's got her heel in her crotch while her hand is in the same place. She can hardly wait for this guy to come up with the goods. They are out in a field somewhere. She is hot and he is falling behind in his responsibility. He knows it is his responsibility to "get a room" or by extension a place to bed down together. "All the solutions you need. All in one place." He needs solutions quick- the message is "C'mon dude, get it together and take care of this hottie or you will lose her. We can help. Get a home loan from us and the object of your desire will be yours." All this happens in an instant. a mini-drama imperceptible to the conscious mind but available after extended study. ads are made to be apprehended in 2 or 3 seconds - flipping a magazine, driving by a billboard. I have an MFA in Fine Art and have been trained for many years to analyze visual images. but the messages that are conveyed here can not be perceived consciously in 2 or 3 seconds. The eyes and brain however, catch them instantaneously. The emotional impact of the image enters the unconscious. Deep-seated fears and urges are unleashed. And the solution to all of this precipitous passion and anxiety is within reach: a Fleet Home Loan... The most important parts of this type of message are unconsciously perceived. I guess if we at least study this stuff consciously we can gain some measure of awareness of what is or might be going on. Everything we use on a daily basis has been advertised to us by methods like this. Why did we choose the products we have surrounded ourselves with? Not only that, we pay for the costs of marketing this stuff to ourselves. |
Art, i just got a chance to see the picture now, you've described the marketing intent hidden messages beautifully...
Quote:
and on the emotional level, as i can only speak for myself... in hindsight, i see the way that advertisments pushed my "shame" buttons in regards to my body image. ______ one other thing that i noticed while studying the picture, is that girl/woman in the background... seems to be a "looming" figure... her dark hollow eyes, the blackness of her mouth hanging open... almost "dead"... something to be afraid of... contrast against the somewhat demure white dress... her hand in her crotch, her fallen strap... her desire... he appears young, looks "bookwormish"... he is afraid of her perhaps... but she is something he is "supposed" to want... i saw this as another way for the ad to feed the "anxiety" level and jerk the emotional reaction... Quote:
|
I want a girl just like the girl who sallied from old ads
....................
Sexism with an alibi Supposedly ironic, even kitsch, ads still keep women in their place May 31, 2003 The Guardian Sexism in advertising. It sounds almost quaint. The very words have a retro ring to them, conjuring up, on the one hand, scenes of be-aproned housewives serving casseroles to hungry husbands, and on the other, posters of leggy models in platform boots and hotpants with - and this is a key image in the scenario - feminists in dungarees slapping "this degrades women" stickers all over them. For sexism isn't just a phenomenon, it's an idea - and once the word stops being used, the idea goes out of fashion. What then becomes passe isn't actually sexism, which is doing just fine, but the concept of sexism, in advertising or anything else. This concept (unlike "racism") has fallen into disuse in recent years, and is now rarely employed in public debate. So our view of the situation it describes becomes locked in the moment when the term flourished: and increasingly our culture presents sexism as a kind of 60s or 70s phenomenon, to be enjoyed as kitsch, rather than as a contemporary problem to be addressed as unjust. Certainly you would never know from media imagery that women's income lags far behind men's, that domestic violence against women is frighteningly common, and that women still perform the bulk of domestic labour. In today's ad world, women outperform male colleagues in the boardroom and steer Jeeps across rugged landscapes, while husbands with skewed ties struggle over baby formula, and anxious youths worry about spots before dates. What might be termed "social" (as opposed to sexual) ad images - depictions of the workplace and domestic life - have changed beyond all recognition in the past few decades, and airbrushed away the grinding day-to-day sexism women still encounter in reality. To complain about this would be to berate advertising for being itself: it always idealises, but what is telling is the change in the ideal. "Social" advertising has achieved a gender revolution before the fact, creating an implicitly post-feminist world in which women are powerful and men compliant (or, if not, about to get their comeuppance). It is a depiction of gender relations that fuels sexism, while banishing it: the portrayal of contemporary society as female-dominated generates powerful sexist feelings which, however, cannot "innocently" be expressed in this imaginary present. So they become channelled on the one hand into what I call retro-sexist imagery, where sexism operates freely within the frame of a period style; and, on the other, into increasingly fetishistic sexual imagery, which depicts power relations as about S&M sex rather than who washes up or chairs the board. Retro-sexism as a social and stylistic phenomenon can be seen across all the media, from ads and fashion spreads to CD covers, where overtly sexist scenarios are couched in period setting and clothing, and/or presented with 60s/70s typography and graphics. A perfect example is the Saturday-night TV series Boys and Girls, which has just finished its first run. The show has sexism built into its live audience format, incorporating a weekly "totty competition" which, though applied to both genders, is framed entirely in male terms, with members of the opposite sex voted either a "babe" or a "minger". But this almost brutal sexual scoring is wrapped in a cutely tongue-in-cheek retro package: the title sequence employs perky 60s graphics and the theme song is Andy Williams's 1967 Music to Watch Girls By. These stylistic trappings imply that it's knowingly done, self-aware, even kitsch: as if that somehow changed the crudeness of the actual content. But the grosser the sexism, the more "retro" it now seems - and this process extends beyond media imagery to society at large. Take the rise in acceptability of lap-dancing clubs: the very name "Spearmint Rhino" has a 70s vibe, a combination of spearmint gum (retro wholesome cleanliness - Wrigley's advert) and Rhinestone Cowboy (retro nostalgic male longing - Glen Campbell's 1975 hit). Another example is the supposedly tongue-in-cheek "stripper for stag night" syndrome - usually presented as old-fashioned fun - or the success of men's magazines, with their nods to the old-style Playboy and Esquire. Retro-sexism is sexism with an alibi: it appears at once past and present, "innocent" and knowing, a conscious reference to another era, rather than an unconsciously driven part of our own. Indeed, retro-sexism seems to hark back to golden days before feminism, an innocent time when it was perfectly OK to think of women as domestic servants or sex objects. But the era its imagery invokes, the late 60s to 70s, was not a pre-feminist era, it was the feminist era - when terms like sexism (originally, male chauvinism) entered public speech. And to signpost sexism today - to make an image look consciously sexist - retro styling is necessary to activate the "period" language in which it had widely understood social meaning. For by the 90s, feminism and sexism were being treated as over, and issues of "sexuality" rather than gender became the focus of cultural debate - with the bizarre result that, as sexual imagery became more explicit, a feminist critique became less fashionable. This was part of a wider process whereby the political counterculture gradually embraced the objects of its critique during the 80s and 90s - a process whose effects remain with us today. And besides locking "sexism" into modes of the past, it has resulted in a climate where, far from seeming exploitative, highly sexualised images now tend to be seen as cutting-edge and radical. Therefore "sexual" (unlike "social") ad imagery has become an arena in which sexism can operate with very little criticism. This is partly because, increasingly, men are portrayed as sex objects, too. But the notion of gender "equality" within sexual imagery takes no account of gender inequality in the world surrounding it. Numerous men complained to the advertising standards authority about the Lee Jeans ad where a woman rests her stiletto boot on a man's naked buttock, on the grounds that it encouraged violence against them. Deeply unpleasant as this image is, its relation to actual violence may nevertheless be the reverse of that proposed in the complaints. It could be seen as projecting in fantasy form not only some men's wishes and/or fears, but an eroticised justification for their anger. In the world of sexual ads, the dominatrix, the bitch and the whore wield power over men; in the real world, a British woman is physically attacked by a man she knows every six seconds. This suggests that, rather than embodying sexual liberation, today's fetishistic imagery provides a language for expressing both sexism and, perhaps, the pain and rage of a sex war which at heart is about social, not sexual power. These ubiquitous images translate the social as sexual: showing gender power struggles nakedly in every sense. And yet we have deprived ourselves of the language to analyse them as such. Our unwillingness to name sexism in the present has on the one hand encouraged it to develop as a form of nostalgia, and on the other, allowed it to flourish in a sexualised form which we perceive as daringly cutting-edge. Alongside these phenomena we have the interesting fact that mainstream social advertising has concocted an impossibly female-dominated world which makes sexism, both the fact and the concept, appear extinct. The reality of sexism is, however, still with us: it is time to resuscitate the term and renew the critique. This is an edited version of an article to appear in the summer edition of Eye (eyemagazine.com). Judith Williamson is the author of Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising ............... If you're interested in pursuing this subject, as am I, there are a lot of resources on the web. I have a selected list of them on this site: ANTI-MASS-MEDIA-MIND-CONTROL MESSAGES |
ART... i also found this site of interest along the same lines...
http://www.subliminalworld.com/indexsma.htm will add more thoughts on this later... |
~springrain, yes, it's among the extensive list of refs, I posted above.
happy sub hunting! |
http://www.artelevision.com/subs_tfp/parliament_sub.jpg
The scene is arid, dry, airless. What kind of way is this to sell cigarettes? Free associating doesn't come up with many positive associations, in fact the dug-out holes in the ground representing low-tar numbers look more like empty graves than anything else. What could be going on here? Smoking may involve a death wish. People are moved by just a few very deep themes - things like sex and death. We are rendered vulnerable to messages and suggestibility when our primal desires and/or fears are pricked. |
Only about 5% of radio listening is conetrated (you do nothing else at the same time, you just listen to it). Source: my communications study book. Same goes pretty much for ads and TV. The fact is taht human beings are social and cultural animals and we live in the cultural world, in symbolic reality, as much as in the physical reality. Communication is always both about changing messages and keeping the social system up. It IS about power, too. But there are theorists who claim that the power is not just in the hands of mediamoguls and advertisers. One shcool of thinking mainatins that everybody have power. We can see how the ad is trying to manipulate us to buy what it sells and go against this obvious reading of the text and useit to construct our own view of that product and the values buying and using that would have in the society. Blah blah blah--- My English skills are again failing me to write sharply and instead this is getting really mindless and it's 4:24 in the morning.. I'll go to sleep now. :)
|
thanks, suviko, for your thoughts.
that's my only intention regarding this subject - to get us thinking on these things. my own views on what is going on are just my own views - and not nearly as important as having the subject discussed...I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything...ever actually. |
one of the things that I do while I'm immersed in any media is to check how it's making me feel.
As I watch a TV show, I watch the commercials carefully. First to see what demographic I'm being lumped into. Second, to see what my reactions to the advertisements are. How did they make me feel, and what is my reaction to them. It's interesting to do the first one.. that's the first step to understanding that you are being researched and manipulated as a group and as an individual. At least with printed material you have time to digest it. TV, I have to tape it, and now that I have Tivo... it's always getting rewound. |
Cynthetiq, good thoughts, thanks.
Right, what I;m trying to do here is encourage us to pay some extra attention to what the media may be attempting to do to us and how it is affecting us. In your words: "...understanding that you are being researched and manipulated as a group and as an individual." |
I forgot the ever important number 3rd thing that I do...
am I being entertained? and how is that entertainment affecting my judgement to the first 2. |
excellent thread ART... everyone's thoughts and comments further the "thinking field"...
sorry i've not much to add today... bone tired and brain is flat out too full right now to add another thing... |
http://www.artelevision.com/subs_tfp/palmolivesub1.jpg
Something funny about this picture. "Who can resist the gentle touch?" |
I heard that Media Studies is not a common subject at US universities- my lecturer tried to tell us that only 2 universities actually run it.
I would love to hear that he's wrong? Any undergrad media students out there? Also, is media something that you can study in high school in the States? |
ART... i almost posted that picture myself... there was another years ago for "Baby Soft" deodorant that was, if you can believe it, more than doubly suggestive and was almost obscene with it's sexual imagery and double entendre' (sp?).
also VERY interesting in possible responses to Easytigers post... this is an issue that i think merits a lot more attention than it is currently getting. as far as high school... it is not offered anywhere that i am aware of... |
I want to add- I ask because I am a media graduate, media worker and media teacher, and was very surprised to hear that the world's biggest media producer and most media-saturated society isn't big on media studies.
|
Here's the killer...
A computer does nothing more than take in information in its world and act upon it based on information it has taken in before. The only things that the computer knows without prior information are completely subconscious -- the spinning of fans, electric current running through its circuits, the power and HDD LEDs on the front of the case, etc. In essence, computers do nothing more than process information based on information, which is in turn either based on other information or created by a human being, which is where the root of it is. Here it comes, ready? How is the human brain any different? As soon as we enter the world, we start taking in the world around us, for the sole purpose of providing our brain with information to process. From this information we produce what we think to be our own conclusions, but are really the result of a very familiar process: processing information based on information, which more often than not is furthermore based on information, and so on. What am I trying to say? Sentience is forged from information. We aren't merely influenced by the media. The output of the media makes up some of the building blocks for our very soul. As much as we are as biological creatures sons of our respective fathers, we are as sentient beings children of the media. With this, I'm forced to conclude that human beings are nothing more than machines designed to process information, perhaps evolve it. Perhaps life itself began in a very similar way... |
Easytiger:
I am not living in US, but there's no way that can be true? :o Some lines are called media studies in universities, but the same sort of issues are brought up in programmes of cultural studies, film & tv studies, communications, journalism, even in sociology & lingusitics (sociolinguistics). You can study media from various aspects in faculties of art or humanities or social sciences. |
Time to post the close-up of the "gentle touch" in the pic above.
http://www.artelevision.com/subs_tfp/palmolivesub2.jpg See? It's not her arm is it? |
Suviko- I admit that you get aspects of media studies in things like English, journalism, film studies, sociology and so on, but you don't get a critical look at the media itself in those fields of study.
I hope I'm wrong. I want to be proven wrong! Won't somebody please prove me wrong!? |
I am studying communications and tv & film studies and sociology as minors. You can do just the same research and with just the same theries and literature in those. Communications in my university is actually an umbrella term for a large field consisting of organization studies, media studies, journalism, small group communication studies & cultural studies. I don't understand why couldn't you get "a critical look at the media itself". What do you have in mind when you say that? Media as a big lump can't be really studied, all theories have some aspect and stress tha cultural or social or political or economical side of it. In my communications studies, I have read Kellner's Media studies, books on Frankfurt school of thought, Stuart Hall's Identity etc. Are these not critical enough or is the catch in the way you view media?
|
search for "media studies class"
search for "media studies" There are a lot of specific courses of study called "media studies" in which media are studied as a whole class of "mediated realities." |
http://dasani.com/assets/ads/images/couple.jpg
I have been walking past a 2-3 story version of this picture every day for the past two weeks. After stopping yesterday and today to really scrutinize it, I figured it was a prime target for Art's thread. |
Don't forget that most of thes mediums are owned by a hand full of companies...chances are the radio station you listen to is owed by Clear Channel Communications...listen to what N'sync, listen to brittney, buy more shit from the gap!
|
Quote:
CJR Who Owns What... |
This is quite possibly the coolest thread I have seen on here. I new there were others out there that thought the way I do and could show me doors! You Rule Mr. Art
|
Quote:
|
If I had a dollar for every shaken up and down, stroked, geyser-shooting, liquid-filled, squirting, cylindrical object that was aimed at models at provocative angles in ads - I'd have a lot of dollars...
|
Hell if you had a nickel for each one you would still be rich. But money can't buy depth and this world has plenty of money.
glad to be here Ĉdenji :) |
it's all too depressing for me at this point... if feels like an uphill battle that will never be won.
|
well, I do understand how you may feel that way.
I wouldn't take the time to post here if I didn't think that by educating ourselves and others to the detph and extent of the influences operating upon us can make some headway against it. Look around and you can see folks who are more clueless about it than you are. That means there's a sliding scale or ladder of awareness. When there's a ladder, we can climb it. When we find ourselves in a hole, we can decide to stop digging... |
Art definetely is on point with this. It's just the awareness that breaks the hypnosis. If you don't at least acknowledge the awareness then you will constantly become numb to it.
Recently I've become more aware of the brand impressions. While I walk to work I note them. One of these days I'm going to count them just to see how many adverts and brand impressions I'm being subjected to from a simple 10 block walk to work. |
The impact of subliminal (or implied) images goes very deep. How many times have any of us looked at a print ad and been affected in some way that we cannot immediately grasp? There is a definite effect on us yet we cannot quite vocalize it or explain exactly what it is, we just know there is "something".
On a less philosophical note, think about how informed we all believe we are. Where does this information come from? Most of the information upon which we base our opinions - if not all - comes from media of some sort. How well do trust that media? When living in San Francisco, I worked for a media wire service. Our business was wiring press releases from our clients (which included Microsoft, Starbucks, AT&T, and many other corporations) to print and electronic "points". I would be amazed to read the paper or see our clients' press releases being reported as news by media outlets. I quickly learned that much of what I knew was what those entities wanted me to know. Just how informed was I, exactly? Much of our news turns out to be paid advertising. I've become extremely cynical towards most media and have tried very hard not to allow myself to be manipulated but it's difficult. I realize that this post has little to do with the messaging in advertising and I hope this hasn't detracted from your intent, Art. I see all media as equally liable in the manipulation of our minds and thoughts and this is another aspect of how it's done. |
very true JJ, I work for a large media company and I have collegues in others. It's amazing just what those PR pieces mean to the news gatherers and reporters. 60 Mins did a piece on Tivo, the company history, the technology, how it's revolutionary, blah blah.... Monday AM the stock was off like a wildfire... Viacom owns CBS which aired the segment. Showtime, also owned by Viacom, owns an interest in Tivo. So was it really a news item or was it just a way to generate some extra cashflow to the fledgling company?
If you watch The Early Show on CBS, you'll notice that they use a piece of technology that allows them to computer superimpose an image directly onto an object in real time. So the side of a building can have an advertisment of something that didn't necessarily have it in real life. That person being arrested wearing the Nike shirt, did he really wear that shirt or was it superimposed? |
Wow.. Great thread. I can't think of any particular thing to respond to so I'll go on a history tangent.
When did this begin? When one looks back, say, a hundred years, it seems as if the world was a lot more free from media pressures.. But is that true? E.g. Religion. Heaven and bliss or death in hell. Patent medecines, promising protection from death and a better time in bed. Popular clothing. All of written history that I can recall seems to be chock full of advertisements, promises to the worshipers of Ra, good times, protection from famine, etc. Yay. I can't think of anything else to add, so again, great thread. |
oooh this IS interesting, i knew they controled our minds but they are sooo good at it too. :)
|
Quote:
|
I see the following article as illustrative of how we are manipulable in subtle ways to "bond" with products in "unnatural" ways...
................................... Car lovers recognize vehicles as faces NewScientist.com news service Men who are fanatical about cars identify vehicles using the same brain circuitry used to recognize faces, new research shows. Forty men, half of whom were proven automobile aficionados, were fitted with sensors to monitor electrophysiological activity in part of the brain linked with facial identification. They were then asked to identify faces and cars, individually and then together. The car lovers had greater difficulty in recognizing vehicles from isolated details, suggesting they recognize them "holistically". This method is normally associated with facial identification. The researchers, Isabel Gauthier of Vanderbilt University in Nashville and Tim Curran of the University of Colorado at Boulder, say their findings contradict the theory that at one part of the brain is used solely for facial recognition. Automobile aficionados also found it more difficult to identify an image consisting of parts of both faces and cars. The researchers say this "traffic jam" in the brain indicates that the same neural process is used to process both types of image. Extreme interest The monitoring of subject's brain activity showed that attempts to identify cars and faces simultaneously occurred at the same time. Both signals were recorded less than a fifth of a second after the image was seen, leading the researchers to conclude that they represent an early stage of image processing. "This indicates that it is a basic perceptual process, not something that happens because auto experts attend to, or reason about, cars in a different way," Gauthier says. "At least some of the same neural circuitry must be involved in identifying faces and other objects of extreme interest," Andy Calder, at the MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences Unit at Cambridge University, UK, agrees that the work indicates that the region of the brain used for facial recognition has a discernable effect on the recognition of other things. But he says alternative interpretations of the electrophysiological signals are possible. Even in the short time available, some suggest that the subjects' brains could be performing a more complex perceptual process, assigning a sociological meaning to the images seen. ........................... I don't think it's a stretch to see the hooks that advertisers can use to pull our strings regarding identifying with their "inanimate" products in "animate" ways. We can easily be made to develop actual love for this stuff we buy. |
Art,
very similar to some of those old 50s cartoons with the car families... and also of course, Super Buggy... |
It's good to practice using your perceptual-shift perception apparatus.
Sometimes there are two ways to perceive something. You are probably focusing on the couple in coitus and not seeing any porpoise at all... http://www.artelevision.com/artelevi..._porpoises.jpg Thanks to Cynthetiq for this one |
Here's one that reminds me of the idea that's conveyed in this paragraph we've recently encountered:
"It deosn't mttaer waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteres are at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe." .................................................. Ok, wtih taht in mnid, cehck out tihs ad: http://www.frenchconnection.com/flash/index_small.html |
fascinating Art... *smile*
I was thinking of you and this thread just last night actually... was watching a movie late last night... typical scene were someone is walking slowly through their house at night... with trepidation... eerie music is playing in the background... danger seemed imminent... though nothing pointed to that fact, except for the music, and the way in which the director painted the scene... my heart was pounding... i was holding my breath... squeezing my fists... i realized how often i feel exactly the same way while walking through my own home when alone at night... even on the most peaceful summer evening... my body is conditioned to "fight or flight" everytime i walk down that dark hallway... no matter how serene or safe the situation may be in reality... the depth and range of how much we really are shaped by the external never ceases to amaze me... |
I used to teach media criticism in graduate school and we would deconstruct images like these - it was amazing to watch the lights go on as the students realized that there are messages...and then there are messages. I had many students credit the class with changing the way they viewed media - we focused particularly on network and local news and other infotainment - and at least one student curse me for ruining television for him forever.
~springrain - I have had many similar experiences and it's frightening to realize just how much we've internalized certain "scripts" from the media. If I'm by myself at home, washing the dishes with my back to the door because that's how the kitchen is configured (bad feng shui, I know ;) ) I feel uneasy and keep checking over my shoulder. Why? Because "this is the part in the horror movie where the Villain sneaks up on the Unsuspecting Female." We have scripts about romance, relationships ("You complete me." Gag on Tom Cruise.), gender, work, money, you name it. Sometimes I feel like just a compilation of scripts, running subconsciously while I pretend to be driving the mental contraption. Even resisting the scripts merely feeds into another script - "countercultural pseudo-bohemian poseur buys subversive t-shirt." Awareness of the irony doesn't necessarily render the following of the script a self-directed act. I do think awareness is the first step to freedom, but I find that as often as not it leads to paralysis, at least for me. I stand there at the grocery store, for example, looking at sixteen different brands of peanut butter - this one reminds me of my childhood; this one has a very attractive label; this one's on sale; this one's organic; this one donates profits to charity - and wonder about the semiotic significance of my eventual purchasing decision. "What does this peanut butter say about me?" THEY'RE ALL FRICKING MADE OF PEANUTS. The only real difference is the branding. I just read a great book by William Gibson - "Pattern Recognition" in which the protagonist is allergic to brand identifiers. She grinds the "Levis" logo off the grommets (?) on her jeans. Tommy Hilfiger gives her a migraine. The Michelin Man sends her into shock. I found myself noticing the presence of branding and it made me realize how incredibly saturated we are by advertisement and branding, how we ourselves are branded (remember the origins of the word - the hot iron searing flesh), how unaware we tend to be - it's just background noise. So, short of the cataclysmic destruction of our society, is there any way out? Is awareness enough to reverse the damage? Is it possible to reclaim our psyches or are we forver doomed to be tools of the image-makers? Since they play on already-existing human tendencies to make everything MEAN something, is there any way to turn it off, or to turn their methods on them and produce more empowering meanings from the symbols we're given? |
Quote:
:D |
Quote:
The second rule of Fight Club is YOU DON'T TALK ABOUT FIGHT CLUB. :) You are not your fucking khakis. God I love that movie. OK, so perhaps there are several levels of awareness that we slip in and out of: 1. Oblivion: Want to go shopping? Abercrombie & Fitch are having a sale. 2. Awareness of manipulation: Eureka! They WANT me to buy stuff and are trying to MAKE me do it! 3. Criticism of said manipulation and analysis of response: How are they trying to manipulate me? What effect does this have on my actions/thoughts/identity? (I think this is where I was in the grocery store - aware of the manipulation, trying to figure out which choice would get me OUT of the trap of being manipulated.) 4. Provisional freedom: Temporary transcendence of symbolic value, a return to pure use value. Aw, fuck it. It's peanut butter. This one's cheap and has the least sugar. Done. 5. ??? There has to be something more. Subversion of the process, not just learning to live in/around it. |
lurkette... :)
i took my first "media study" course back in high school. it was offered at the local college, and i needed a "blow-off" class for extra credits in this free study program i was in... it blew me away! funny though how even though i have studied and been aware of the power of the media over the years... subconsciously it still effects me quite powerfully. it feels like a never ending battle -- i can totally relate to what you said about feeling paralyzed! it's as though my brain simply reaches overload. really interesting thoughts... good to be reminded of all this and find new ways to shut off all those unending subconscious scripts... thanks lurkette... excellent insight *smile* |
the answer for us always was, is, and will always be increased awareness.
this refers to the issue(s) at hand and also to any other issue(s) |
Quote:
|
~springrain
that's great! it's good that you associated the content we're discussing here with a media experience while you were having it and also observing its effect on you. that's why I pursue this stuff. it is about raising awareness. I have some faith in us when we are in more heightened states of awareness. it never ends... |
lurkette,
as you say: "I used to teach media criticism in graduate school and we would deconstruct images like these - it was amazing to watch the lights go on..." there's nothing quite like opening the gates of perception a little more than they had been open before. this feeling is the same whether we open them for ourseves or for others. it always feels like the right thing to be doing... |
Cynthetiq - yep!
it makes the whole thing even more swimmingly erotic, does it not? |
Yet would you want to cut your life off entirely from the media and the popular world? You can only live in the universe of your own fabrication for a certain amount of time before you will lose touch with the rest of humanity.
Idolizing, replaying, fixating-- these concepts are of the evil's kin. We cannot focus our lives on non-reality. We cannot live our lives beyond the moment, the present. Emotion is only truly remarkable when experienced as the reality unfolds. Living through our idols, living through a reality that is anyone's but our own was never, and will never be healthy nor rewarding. |
edited do to rambeling
|
Litespeed, bender,
Thanks for the thoughtful input... I believe, in general, that by questioning the things before our eyes, we have a better chance of understanding the things that lie right behind our eyes. I am a media critic because I think it's what each one of us needs to be. That's pretty much my position here. There are a lot of interesting ideas bender raises and many of them are the kind of thing one gets to discuss in Media Studies classes. I like the image of the flashing lights and repeated messages that he raises. The first Homa Sapiens were involved in just such rituals when, in the caves of Lascaux, their elders and wise men initiated them into the secrets of life and the hunt. Inside those caves the flickering firelight played against the first public media spectacles - the cave paintings of bison, hunters, prey, and the symbols of their thought. The repetetition of chants and songs must have created something like a cinematic experience. Public spectacles involve and engage citizens and are effective in getting people to tow the cultural line. This has ever been true... There are many ways to look at all this. It's cool to read various responses to this thread. Thanks! |
Excellent thread ART.
This forum is considered a form of media, is it not? You Have effectively changed the way I think now because I will question myself more on decisions I make. How and why we make decisions can be altered by almost any event in one's life. With the deluge of media in our current world, of course we will be influenced whether we are conscious of it or not. |
http://www.artelevision.com/artelevi...MSubSchool.jpg
Here's an interesting one. It's from 2001 but it will go down in history. Read it and weep: ............................. Philip Morris draws fire for anti-smoking freebies to schools WASHINGTON -- Millions of book covers sent to schools by cigarette maker Philip Morris show children on snowboards and skis and warn them: ``Don't Wipe Out. Think. Don't Smoke.'' The free covers have sparked protests from education and health advocates across the country, who call the brightly colored fold-over covers a smoke screen that violates a 1998 ban on tobacco advertising to children. The critics charge the covers attempt to link Philip Morris' name more to fun in the snow than to the ``don't smoke'' message and contain subliminal smoking messages. Some are demanding investigations by state attorneys general. Students and teachers also have complained about the covers, part of 26 million produced last year for the cigarette maker. ``The snowboard looks like a lit match. The clouds look like smoke. The mountains look like mounds of tobacco at an auction,'' said Gerald Kilbert, who directs the California Education Department's Healthy Kids Program. ``The tobacco industry is still up to their old tricks of trying to attract children using different techniques.'' Philip Morris says its willingness to fight youth smoking should not be judged by the book covers. The maker of Marlboro, Virginia Slims and other popular brands says the covers have no secret message and don't violate the agreement. In a letter on Wednesday to the attorneys general, however, advocates said the Philip Morris covers are ``promoting its brand name among schoolchildren,'' and the campaign ``appears to be indirectly promoting tobacco products to them.'' The National Association of Attorneys General is reserving judgment. ``It will take some fairly sophisticated analysis,'' said Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, who oversees enforcement of the state-tobacco agreement. ``You are not dealing with direct messages but rather indirect and subliminal messages.'' ``The potential for a violation is there,'' he said. ``Anytime you have material going into schools, you at least raise a red flag.'' Last year, Philip Morris sent about 26 million book covers free to 43,000 schools nationwide. Arizona high school students complained to the state attorney general. A Rhode Island middle school health counselor tossed them after seeing the cigarette makers' copyright. The California school superintendent asked principals statewide to keep them away from students. ``The need isn't for Philip Morris to do anti-smoking campaigns,'' said Matt Myers, the top lawyer for the advocacy group Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. ``The need is for Philip Morris to stop doing advertising that makes its products more popular among children than any other brands.'' Philip Morris, which spends $100 million a year on government-backed anti-smoking projects and print and television anti-smoking advertising, feels a duty to deter underage users of its products and sought a message that would appeal to students, said company spokesman Brendan McCormick. ``The only intention with the covers is to help reduce the incidence of youth smoking,'' McCormick said. The covers include the surgeon general's patent warning against smoking and a the company's name in a copyright declaration. The covers, which include sunbursts and other sporting designs, were tested in market focus groups, McCormick said, and none of those children saw pro-smoking images. He said the covers are ``in accordance with the spirit of the agreement.'' In a 1998 settlement for $200 billion with several states, cigarette makers were banned from advertising to underage customers. In the pact between 46 states and the tobacco industry, Philip Morris, along with firms such as R.J. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson, agreed to help states pay for youth anti-smoking campaigns. Book covers, often required by schools to protect textbooks from excessive wear, are widely distributed by other companies. Primedia, which owns in-school network Channel One, designs and distributes covers for Philip Morris, Kellogg, Walt Disney Co. and Hershey Food Co. among others. No Philip Morris covers are planned for 2001, Primedia said. ``The book covers seek to make Philip Morris a credible messenger,'' said Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' Myers. ``That only enhances its traditional advertising.'' Some smoking opponents, wary of any help from tobacco companies, say their ads avoid mention of the harsh realities of smoking like lung cancer. ``It's like the fox guarding the henhouse,'' said Carol Hall-Walker, who manages anti-tobacco projects for Rhode Island, where 34 percent of high schoolers smoke. ``Their ultimate goal is to sell cigarettes.'' ............................... Now, back to the poster. Does it seem different to you now that you know something more about it? http://www.artelevision.com/artelevi...MSubSchool.jpg |
I didn't even need to read the article to notice the match-looking snowboard. That's absolutely terrible. Is there any follow-up on this story that you know of?
|
heh. someone out there needs a research topic, maybe?
............ I just noticed how the overall shape of the image area resembles an open matchbook. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project