The “(Not so) New Woman”

I have chosen to analyze the first and second seasons of the television series “Lipstick Jungle.” I will examine the contradictions between the general ideas of the show with its content. I will analyze in the way that Bonnie Dow (1996) qualified her arguments in the book “Prime-Time Feminism: Television, Media Culture, and the Women’s Movement Since 1970.” My assertions are based upon my perception of the show. I do not intend to impress that my perceptions are the only way to interpret the show, nor are they the best. This show can be seen in many different lights and many may disagree with my opinions. I do hope that people may consider my arguments and reconsider their evaluations of the show.

The show is based on the best-selling book written by Candace Bushnell, writer of the beloved “Sex and the City,” and very similar to it. I will first introduce the general underlying concepts that the show represents in its entirety. These concepts were established in the very first episode. The show is about three high-powered New York women. They’re beautiful, successful, “independent,” and they each carry a feminist bitterness, especially in Nico, the blonde editor in chief with aspirations of becoming her company’s next CEO. These women are supposed to represent the “new woman.” They are women equal to men and more in both the workplace and at home, initially at least. As the show proceeds, more and more does the content and dialogue contradict these ideas.

Nico begins the show as the most feminist of the three friends, and in the very first episode, clings to the idea that she wants nothing to do with a family for fear it will knock her out of the running for the CEO position. When describing the basis for her feelings, reflecting on career women as a whole, she says, “If you want to start a family you’re distracted, and if you don’t then there’s something wrong with you: you’re unnatural, you hate men, you’re hiding testicles under your skirt.” She’s constantly comparing herself to men and ascertaining that she is equal to them. However, as you watch on, Nico becomes exactly what she was against. Suddenly, her dead husband’s illegitimate child is dropped into her lap. She immediately falls in love with the child, becoming unexpectedly matronly, and suddenly wanting to start a family. She neglects her job, expects her 25 year old boyfriend to become daddy, and she becomes the “irrational girlfriend.”

As far as the other main characters go, this is a brief summary for each of them. Victory Ford is a clothing designer constantly in need of a man. She is sad, alone and in constant pursuit of her “soul-mate.” Wendy starts the show at the top of a movie studio. She loses her job and becomes the jealous, insecure housewife, temporarily I hope. While the feminist undertone is ever present, it is not always reflected by the main characters, and is at times contradicting to the general ideas that the first episode introduced as the umbrella for the show. The first episode emphasizes embracing the women’s strengths, excelling, and not apologizing for it. When speaking of Wendy’s fight with her husband over Wendy’s success, Nico closes the episode with, “you deserve to be loved for your strengths not in spite of them.” As the show proceeds, it becomes a disservice to the career woman, affirming the existence of a glass ceiling, and incapability of women based upon their “hardwiring.” In this sense, the show functions as a post-feminist text.

Attempted Censorship: “The Catcher in the Rye”

The “Catcher in the Rye” by Jerome Salinger was published in 1951. It is a story about adolescent conformity. It uses slang, profanity and discusses things like adolescent sexuality. The book has been described as “promoting perversion,” “immoral,” “anti-white,” “rebellious,” and “profane.” With a whopping “785 dirty words,” a parent once declared the book “Communist.” There have been many attempts to censor the book, from schools specifically, making it one of the most censored books in the US of all time. None prevailed however, because of the rights allowed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; these rights being the freedom of religion and expression. Therefore, despite all efforts against it, The Catcher in the Rye is and will remain a classic book used in classrooms across the country.

From 1966 to 1975, The Catcher in the Rye was the most frequently banned book in schools. Dissent with the book was expressed before that however. In 1960 a teacher was fired for assigning the book to an eleventh grade English class. In 1981 the book was not only the most censored book but also the second most taught book in public schools in the US. From 1990 to 2000, the book was the thirteenth book most attempted to be censored, in 2005 it was in the top ten and in 2006 disappeared entirely from the list.

“The Catcher in the Rye” has received attention not only from school boards, parents, teachers and librarians, but from the general public as a whole because of an infamous few that were apparently obsessed with the book. Mark David Chapman was John Lennon’s assassin. After shooting John Lennon 5 times, he sat down, took out “The Catcher in the Rye” and began reading a few pages of it until the police arrived. He wrote in the front cover of the book, “This is my Statement. Holden Caufield- ‘The Catcher in the Rye’.” Another very famous “The Catcher in the Rye” enthusiast is John Hinckley Jr., the man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Apparently he had two obsessions, “The Catcher in the Rye” and Jodie Foster. He supposedly tried to murder Ronald Reagan to impress the latter obsession. The final murderer clearly obsessed with “The Catcher in the Rye,” was Robert John Bardo. He murdered Rebecca Schaeffer while confronting her at her house for losing her innocence in a sex scene in a movie. He had a copy of the book on him during this confrontation.

Overall, my feelings on the topic of censorship are mixed. The first amendment guarantees the right of freedom of expression certainly, but there should be a line crossed on what is allowed to be used as curriculum for school. As far as the case of “The Catcher in the Rye” goes, I think that it should certainly be allowed to be taught in school. It was a very influential and controversial piece of its time, and is worth discussing in the classroom. However I don’t feel that rule can be applied to all things. The film “Hostel” was shocking and took horror films to another level, but do I want that shown in Film as Literature classes across the country? Absolutely not. Yet any restrictions or bans on forms of expression violate the First Amendment. There’s a fine line between what’s appropriate for the classroom and what’s not. So that leaves me with the question, how do we protect that line from being crossed without violating the Constitution that is the very foundation of our country?

Cholesterol-Fighting Drugs Show Wider Benefit?

My assignment this week was to analyze a single article from the health or science sections of a mainstream news source. With that article, I then needed to discuss if I found the coverage to be sensationalized, and if I found the quoted sources credible. The article I chose was “Cholesterol Fighting Drugs Show Wider Benefit” by Pam Belluck, and the news source was NewYorkTimes.com. The article discusses the recent study called “Jupiter” on statins, a cholesterol fighting drug, and its benefits for everyone, even those with low cholesterol.

In the introduction, the journalist blatantly sensationalizes the study by simply stating that the study proved statin to significantly lower the “risk of heart attacks, strokes and death.” The journalist paints a superficial picture for her audience through her word choice, shallow analysis, and articulation of “facts.” Overall I felt that the study was interpreted and described in a way to support the sensationalized claims in the introduction. The journalist wanted to interpret the study a certain way so she manipulated the facts and placed them in an order to favor her very clear stand on the topic. For this reason, I felt the press as storyteller role was displayed. For example, in her second and third paragraphs, she describes the specific details of the study, such as how many subjects were involved and the amount of time they were studied. In describing the time of the study she says, “statin was considered so beneficial that an independent safety monitoring board stopped what was supposed to be a five-year trial last March after less than two years.” This statement was a red flag. The word independent is what drew my attention. By immediately following the independent word with “safety monitoring board” she created a sense of legitimacy. Later on she says,”some experts questioned whether stopping the trial early had limited the possibility of some more meaningful data. Dr. Ridker said it had not.” Dr. Ridker is the leader of the “Jupiter” study. The way the journalist described the experts’ skepticism of stopping of the trial early by immediately following with “Dr. Ridker said it had not,” was to me an attempt to cancel out that skepticism. I felt that in between the lines the journalist was saying, “Dr. Ridker knows what he’s talking about, and these other experts do not.”

I felt suspicious of the selection of outside sources throughout the article. For one, Dr. Ridker was practically the only scientist quoted that was actually involved in the research. All the others were “not connected to the study,” and through that the journalist tried to create a sense of legitimacy. I felt as if she was saying “these sources weren’t even involved and they’re backing this study.” As a skeptical reader, I was dubious. She could have quoted sources that were paid to support her claims for all we know. Not accidentally I’m sure, the sources that were skeptical of the study were not skeptical about any aspect of the study that was exceedingly prominent.

In reading this article, I found a lot of red flags that I never would have paid attention to previously. The media truly does sensationalize new health studies and I was not aware of that before. I’ll be paying attention to future articles on statins to see if the bold statements about its effects on lowering the risks of heart attacks, strokes and death changes. Something tells me they will.

White Gold is White Gold

My assignment this week was to explore an online branded community. I chose to explore the “White Gold is White Gold” website. This site is an online branded community promoting milk. The site opens by introducing White Gold himself with his milk filled guitar and his beautiful identical twin band mates, the Calcium Twins. It says, “Prepare to have your mind exploded by the milk-tastical sounds of rock’s most perfect beings…White Gold.” The viewers are then taken on their “rock journey” as “rock travelers” where there are different pictures you can click on to do different games and watch different videos. Even despite the “milk-tastical” comment at the start of my experience on the site, I was still not certain what exactly the site was promoting. It took the welcoming instruction caption that said “pure rock essence, also known as milk” for me to finally connect the dots. Then, as a response to the ridiculousness of it all, I immediately assumed this site was meant to appeal to young children. However, after my first destination on my “rock journey,” I learned that perhaps preteens were not the only desired audience.

My first destination I chose was the “Chill-atorium”. The music is calm and it says “ascend to the chill-atorium, a retreat where the calcium twins transcend the earthly cares of PMS.” This is where I got confused. PMS? The “calcium twins” do a series of yoga poses and then, as I continue on with my rock journey, the site informs me that milk helps with PMS. Interesting.

My next stop was “Is it me or do you love my hair?” It was an interactive music video of White Gold and the Calcium Twins. It starts with White Gold filling his guitar with milk and singing about how milk gave him his gorgeous locks and giant muscles. As the viewer, I could click on things, drag the amps off the platform and shake the mouse to control how long the solo was.

“White Gold is White Gold” is certainly an interesting attempt to appeal to milk drinkers. I definitely found it engaging, and, as a child interested in video games and music, would have found it enthralling. I think that it needs to pick a certain audience and focus entirely on appealing to that audience. Preteens and lower are those I think would be most engaged with this website, and I don’t know anyone that falls into that category who’s interested in knowing if milk helps with PMS or not. Kids are, however, interested in being cool and strong, and that was the overall message it was trying to convey that milk does for you. On the whole, I found it to be a creative and potentially very effective online branded community.

Video Games and Violence

My assignment this week was to write about the effects of violent video games like Grand Theft Auto on its users. More specifically, I researched the believed violent behavioral effects resulting from violent video games, and if there is in fact a causal relationship between the two. My evidence to my claims is based on my analysis of three articles. These articles include the following: “The Effects of Technological Advancement and Violent Content in Video Games on Players’ Feelings of Presence, Involvement, Physiological Arousal, and Aggression,” “Does Playing Violent Video Games Induce Aggression? Empirical Evidence of a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study,” and “The Relationship between Video Game Play and Trait Verbal Aggressiveness: An Application of the General Aggression Model.”

The video game industry today greatly exceeds both the film and music industries in market value. More than 90% of all American children and adolescents play video games for, on average, about 30 minutes daily. A vast number of adults now play as well. In fact, adults between ages 18 and 49 are playing video games more than adolescents now. Overall, video games have become a large part of American and international cultures.

Along with video games’ growth in popularity, growth of concern for the issue of its violence effects has become more prominent as well. Actually, concern for violence in the media as a whole has become more prominent. As Cary Greenwood, our guest lecturer, mentioned, violence in the media has been a concern since 1972 when the United States Surgeon General acknowledged the connection between violence on TV and violent behavior. The issue of violence in the media has been under constant scrutiny ever since.

Based on the secondary research I conducted, I do not believe that it is legitimate to correlate a causal relationship between violent video games with violent behavior in users. According to my sources, there are figures that suggest violent behavior results from violent video games but these numbers are so slight they cannot be taken as concrete evidence for a causal relationship between the two. What was proven to be an effect of video games was verbal aggressiveness. Frequent gamers proved to be more verbally aggressive than infrequent gamers. Effects beyond this were not confirmed by my sources. Studies on violence on TV, however, have been able to find a causal relationship between violence on TV and violence in its viewers. It is interesting to me that violent video games, which are basically interactive TV shows, do not prove to have the same effects. Perhaps the better question here is not “Do violent video games cause violence in users?” but rather, “Do people with already aggressive traits prefer violent video games?”

Ivory, J., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2007, September). The Effects of Technological Advancement and Violent Content in Video Games on Players’ Feelings of Presence, Involvement, Physiological Arousal, and Aggression. Journal of Communication, 57(3), 532-555. Retrieved October 28, 2008, doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00356.x

Weber, R., Ritterfeld, U., & Mathiak, K. (2006, February). Does Playing Violent Video Games Induce Aggression? Empirical Evidence of a Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. Media Psychology, 8(1), 39-60. Retrieved October 28, 2008, doi:10.1207/S1532785XMEP0801_4

Chory, R., & Cicchirillo, V. (2007, May). The Relationship between Video Game Play and Trait Verbal Aggressiveness: An Application of the General Aggression Model. Communication Research Reports, 24(2), 113-119. Retrieved October 29, 2008, doi:10.1080/08824090701304766

CNN vs. Democracy Now

My assignment this week was to monitor and analyze the coverage of an alternative media source and a mainstream media source. The alternative source I selected was “Democracy Now.org” and the mainstream source was “CNN.com.” The stories I looked at were in the “latest news” section of “CNN.com” and the “headlines” section of “Democracy Now.” “Democracy Now” seemed to revolve, almost in entirety, around the upcoming presidential election. “CNN.com” had a more broad range of stories. For the purpose of this analysis I will focus on the political stories so I may compare the two in that way. Overall, while “Democracy Now” blatantly favors Barack Obama, I felt their stories were more relevant and atnalytical to the election.

The stories on “CNN.com” surrounding the election, in the latest news section, included the following: “Cindy McCain lashes out at Media,” “Protesters try to block Palin’s Car,” and “Voter Turned Away for Obama Shirt.” These stories don’t even attempt to cover the issues. Considering that this is the mainstream source that the masses rely on for the majority of their news coverage, this was a little disconcerting.

While “Democracy Now” too had its fair share of stories that I found to be a complete waste of coverage, it most certainly had a deeper sense of analysis and skepticism in its coverage compared to the stories I read from “CNN.com.” This source overall fulfilled the most important media role of “media as custodian.” Stories from the headlines section include: “John Nichols on the GOP’s New McCarthyism and the 2008 Congressional Races” and “Barack Obama Accepts Endorsement of Colin Powell Despite the Ex0Genereal’s Role in Making the Case for Iraq War.” It was in these two stories I found that “Democracy Now” really displayed the “custodian of fact” role. They were both enlightening and deep. The writer really went to the core of the issues and although the site overall very obviously favors Obama, they questioned his statements on the issues.

Stories on “Democracy Now” that I found equal or lesser in value to “CNN.com” include: “McCain Supporters Harass Obama Voters in North Carolina,” “Ohio Governor: GOP is Trying to Scare Newly Registered Voters” and “Colorado Protesters Attempt to Blockade Sarah Palin’s Motorcade.” Stories such as these were the bulk of the headlines which, for an alternative media source, I think is acceptable. It is my opinion that alternative media sources are not bound to the same commitment to society as the mainstream sources are. I expect mainstream media to supply unbiased news to the masses. While this is not generally the case, it is the fundamental value of mainstream media.

Media Roles in “Meet the Press”

My assignment this week was to analyze the election coverage of a specific media source for three days. Then with that analysis, I was asked to both identify and explain the different media roles portrayed. The roles of media in my analysis are those defined by Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Paul Waldman in their book: “The Press Effect.” These roles are as followed: “press as custodian of fact,” “press as storyteller,” “press as psychologist,” “press as soothsayer,” and “press as patriot.”

The source of media that I selected was MSNBC’s “Meet The Press.” I watched the September 28th, October 5th, and October 12th episodes, the most recent three. I believe that “Meet the Press” did an excellent job in covering the election over its past three episodes; however a lack of bias and personal jabs would have made it even more effective. “Meet the Press” fulfilled all but two of the roles of press, each to a greater or lesser degree. These being, “press as custodian of fact,” “press as storyteller” and “press as soothsayer.”

The mediator would point out prior statements made by his guests on the show, and question them further on those statements. The show brought in supporters of both candidates providing commentary from perspectives of both candidates’ political parties. The show played ads from both candidates and read reviews from members of both parties and analyzed them. In these ways, they displayed the role as “custodian of fact.”

The show portrayed the role as “storyteller” through the guest speakers. It was through the guest speakers that the personal jabs and bias became most prominent. A lot of what the speakers had to say dealt directly with the other speaker, and in that they would select the facts to make their point stronger as opposed to giving all the facts. For example, the section debated by the former and present congressmen from Colorado. In this debate, it became not a debate on the election issues, which were the basis of the debate, but a debate on each other. It was distracting and most certainly took away from the overall effectiveness of their points that did revolve around the election. Therefore, their speaking categorized their time as the “press as storyteller.”

Horserace politics, although not prominent, were displayed in the three episodes I watched. The popularity of each candidate in each state was discussed and analyzed. The polls were talked about. At one point the mediator directly asked two of his speakers how they predicted each candidate would finish. These occurrences fall into the classification of “press as soothsayer.”

Overall, while I felt “Meet the Press” did cover the election well, it would have strengthened the points of the speakers considerably if they had lessened the bias and completely removed the personal jabs.

Bonjour!

Welcome to my blog! This is my very first blog and I am so excited to leave my first marks on the blogosphere! My name is Julia Thompson and I am a freshman at the University of Oregon. I do not have a major yet but I am considering journalism which is the very reason for the existence of my blog. I created this blog for my Mass Media and Society class so my posts will predominantly revolve around media and media influences on society, but I will also include personal posts of my personal experiences. My personal posts will most likely focus on my travels. I love to travel. My passion for experiencing different cultures has taken me all over the world. My most recent endeavor was India. India was by far my favorite country yet. The culture shock was the largest here of all my other adventures and it was such an exciting experience. I immediately fell in love with Indian culture. Despite the plight of the masses, the people seem far happier than most Americans. The sense of camaraderie is so prominent everywhere you go, it is truly touching. I hope to someday spend a few months in India exploring all the different villages and experiencing the culture as much as possible. Along with a few months in India, I hope to travel through several different countries consecutively for a whole year. In India I met several young people from across Europe travelling across the world for a year and it fascinated me. Other places I have been include China, France, Italy, England, Australia, Canada, Mexico and all across the US. My next trip will be Spain this winter. My younger sister is studying abroad in Madrid so I’m going to go see her. I desperately want to study abroad as well. Paris is my ideal location because I love the French language. French is another one of my passions, and it is also something I’m considering as a major. The major I choose will most certainly involve language whether it’s through journalism or French or both. Expressing ideas through writing is enthralling to me because only in one’s writing are we able to clearly convey our thoughts. We do this through deliberately picking each and every word that is most effective in explaining our feelings by evaluating each word’s sound, meaning and connotation. Well that was a little bit about me. I hope you all enjoy my blog! Thanks for reading!