15

I haven't been up to a lot lately. This is mostly because I have had a long, long stretch of time between my last exam and my final paper. Thusly, I have been doing an incredible amount of dicking around. Up until today this was something that I assumed was futile and a waste of life. But, turns out that my incredible sloth actually ended up being the reason why I found something to blog about. Silver lining? I think so.

I'm a little slow on the uptake about this, but apparently there has been a Toronto Media Activist, calling himself Phreak615 that has been hacking into Much Music's signal over the past few weeks. Exploiting the inadequate knowledge of new techonology by the company's employees, Phreak615 is claiming that he has direct access to Much Music's digital server and has rigged a way to broadcast himself.

I have seen these grainy, 10 second interruptions twice today. One with phreak615 holding up a sign with his website scrawled on it, while he said "I am Britney Spears," and another time a woman shrieking in a tone that was not totally audible with another plug to the blog.

Feeling somewhat optimistic in recent days, I'm hoping that this is the real deal. I want more than anything for someone with an actual agenda to successfully find a way to be subversive and to have this broadcast into the homes of the thousands of people who are watching. But, this is where my cynicism creeps in.

For someone who has gone to great lengths to discover a way to hack into Much Music's broadcasts and calls themselves a media activist, I'm not really seeing a whole lot of activism going on. Sure, it is a statement in and of itself that this guy has figured out a way to weasel onto the air and interrupt Mat Babel and Leah Miller's pithy dialouge about beautiful people and shiny new products. But, if you had that kind of a platform, and had enough drive to worm your way onto the television sets via one of the most recognized staples of Canadian television while (probably) breaking the law, don't you think you'd have something to say? Something beyond "I am Britney Spears" or only plug your blog that has no mission statement or sense of direction? I am intrigued that this man has been attempting to get people to create videos so that they can be broadcast as well but if you have no mission statement, then what are these people supposed to say? This entire thing to me seems a) a little lack luster and b) probably a huge con.

This is probably going to be revealed as some sort of wonderful promotion that taps into a cultural phenomenon, not unlike the that marketing that Cloverfield had. If this is the case, good one Much Music, way to tap into the viral video craze that those kids out there today sure do seem to love.

So, to wrap this up, on behalf of culturally interested people every where, please stop getting my hopes up Phreak615. Please don't lead me on to believe that these interruptions actually mean something and are not just shameless self promotion. Please do not abuse our soft spot for viral video and make this a marketing ploy that we are all bound to fall for because of our tiny attention spans coupled with a desire for rebellion sold us in a neat little viral packages. Please, let this be something that has some sort of cultural significance after all is said and done.

Or, at least let me in on the joke Much Music. I can take it. I like to laugh too.

14: bow out gracefully

So kids, this marks the end of my postings for the purpose of being graded. I'm probably going to keep my blog up, as I mentioned earlier today. I can't be sure as of right now what direction I'll be taking this. But, reflecting on the entire experience and looking over my work, I've come to realize that I put a lot of stake into co-optation and incorporation. I hope that I'll be able to expand on this theme throughout the summer, and incorporate more of Duncombe's ideas not only into my analysis of media, but into my everyday practices.


It's been great getting to know all of you; take care of yourselves. You know how to find me.


-kayla

13

I was going to leave my blog as is for evaluation, but I couldn’t pass this up.

So, this my friends is a KFC compilation of southern rappers laying it down about how KFC is soul food, comforting, liberating and, brace yourself kids, heritage. I’m posting this mostly because it’s hilarious, but it also reminded me a lot of the Heath and Potter article we looked at a while ago.

Obviously this is about taking a lifestyle and appropriating it to sell politically incorrect chicken legs. The main stream hip hop culture has been no stranger to this sort of cross promotion and branding. I mean, let’s face it; no one loves Bacardi that much. Companies have been paying artists to throw in references to their products for a very long time, but why this really got me was because there was no attempt to make this seem as if it was being used for altruistic purposes. Beyond the name, “Hitmaker,” which would leave you thinking that this was an outlet for struggling artists to finally catch a break (which it does not), there is no indication that anyone can submit a song. Hey, if you can make a million dollars throwing in some references, it’s your business. But when KFC starts parading artists around with lyrics about its product being soul food, something that really “sticks to your ribs,” it’s very misleading and genuinely absurd. I’m positive that most of the people who come across this are going to think that it is as funny and as I did: Everything about it just screams lame. But, it does provide some insight into how marketing works and the lengths to which companies are willing to go to manipulate culture to sell.

Thanks for reaching out to the community KFC. Your hard work and dedication to the promotion of good family values is really appreciated in the community. Oh, and your commitment to proper nutrition? Stunning.

12

Well, to unveil my official opinion about the Vogue cover that I know you’ve been waiting for with baited breathe is that I pretty much refuse to have an opinion about the Vogue cover. I’m not pretending that it doesn’t exist, I’m just thinking along the lines that if we, or I, feed into an idea like this that it just perpetuates a problem rather than finding any actual answers.

The issue of the cover raises a lot of questions though. And maybe they’re questions that need to be asked in a mainstream forum. Is it racist because we READ racism into it? Is that reading in and of itself inherently racist? Does it say more about us as people, as a conglomerate if we see there being this intertextuality between an image of a white woman and a black man to King Kong?

There has been a lot of focus on this cover, and a lot of it I can say is needless. But, when talking about representation in media, I thought about how when you flip through a Vogue, how many images of minorities do you see? I have a copy of the Vogue at my house and have looked through it, and there were some stunning photographs of Bundchen and James together. So why this cover? Why not this cover?

All in all, I don’t really have an answer, just a series of questions following questions. I think that a dialogue about representations of minorities in mainstream media definitely needs to be opened up and embraced, but I question the validity of this cover to be the catalyst for this. I fear that this is all going to be chalked up to a debate over what is politically correct; another means to gloss over the actual problem rather than facing issues head on. But we shall see.

11: Common, Vogue?

There has been an incredibly large amount of controversy of the the cover of the newest issue of Vogue. Critics, subscribers, and the public have been engaging in debate over whether or not they think that the cover is racist. Before you read on, take a look at the cover here.

The argument made is that the stance that LeBron James has been photographed in is reminiscent of King Kong, while Giselle Bundchen is depicting the fragile, helpless women.

I will post my personal take on the cover tomorrow, but I just thought I'd throw the image out for you guys to take a look at first and consider. I don't want to sway your opinion before you get a chance to take a good look at it. If you want to think more about it, I suggest you ask what does it mean that this cover is being interpreted this way? Does this make a comment on race and gender in a positive or negative manner? What is at stake? From the buzz around the internet, this is the first black man to appear on the cover of Vogue. What connotations do we look at when that is thrown into the mix?

Gisele Bündchen and LeBron James Vogue Cover Controversy. A Socialite's Life. March 28 2008, March 29 2008.

Lebron, Gisele Bunchen Vogue cover stirs up controversy. TheStar.com. March 25 2008. March 29 2008.

10: the reflex

Since last night’s class, I’ve been thinking a lot about our potential for resistance and what resistance means for us right now. As soon as this was brought up, it reminded me of this interview Neil Young where he stated:
“The time when music could change the world is past. I think it would be very naive to think that in this day and age. The world today is a different place, and that it’s time for science and physics and spirituality to make a difference in this world and to try to save the planet.”

That statement has been a dark cloud for me over the past few days. I keep replaying the idea over to myself that if Neil Fucking Young doesn’t think that music can change the world anymore, the man whose music stood as a beacon for so many people, then what is it that we’re supposed to do?

I do not understand the math behind physics, and I vaguely appreciate spirituality to an extent, but music is something that I think I’ve come to understand, in some way or another. Music is something that most people can have access to. And, despite your politics, it’s something that is free. Anyone can make it, anyone can enjoy it. When taught in schools it makes kids smarter. It’s engaging. Maybe it’s not the music’s potential in and of itself to make a difference that’s past, maybe we’re just waiting for the right people to execute the medium correctly again.

Paraphrasing a quotation from a video we watched yesterday, that even if the effort is trivial, but contributes to happiness, then it might be on to something (I do not remember what it was called, help me out if you will). So yes, everything does get appropriated and everything sucks. Despite the fact that I’ve been pretty jaded and bitter about most things in my thinking lately, I think I’m finally getting that even if that is true, it’s at least worth a try to make some sort of change. And why not have fun doing it. It’s clear that we – our culture at large – love the idea of instant pleasure; why not use that for something positive? If everything gets worse and all of my worst fears come true (we all become bottled water drinking, hummer driving, bon jovi loving capitalists) then we can at least say we tried?

9

Last Monday. Lauren and I were discussing the relevance and importance of celebrity culture. Our discussion lead me to think about the content that is posted daily, and beyond that, the potential meaning it has on a grander scale. I readily admit that I engage in the cult of celebrity. I read Perez Hilton daily, I know about Patrick Swayze and what defamatory comments Jessica Alba has made recently. But is there something more to it than just that? Beyond all of the standard trash talk and music recommendations, we both saw the medium becoming something much bigger.

Every once and a while, Perez will deviate from his normal practice of drawing coke noses on paparazzi photos and give some sort of commentary on what's going on in the world -- be it reports on which democratic candidate is his pick, what the situation is Venezuela is, or what's the deal with the writer's strike.

All of this eventually lead me back to something that Duncombe said in the chapter "Recognize Everyone:"

"In the absence of a unifying moral textbook, celebrity gossip becomes one of the places where we work out what is right and what is wrong and, through our interpretations of the actions of these characters eke out a moral code to live by"(Duncombe, 113-4).

When Hilton posts these pieces of non-celebrity text, there's usually the typical wave of offensive comments, but what I'm beginning to see is real, thought out responses and commentary on what has been written; actual engagement with the information that Hilton has provided. While it may not be completely constructive or rational, it still is providing people with a forum to express their responses to the content that has just been published. What does this do to the shape of the moral text book that we create? I'm really beginning to see that there could be more to this entire thing than just the notions that" cocaine is bad, adoption is great” that people have typically been getting from the gossip provided. If this can be used as a tool to shape mores, then can it be a jumping point for readers to become actively involved in the world outside of junk entertainment? And, if social norms are being established, along with interactions with the political, will this become a forum to make politics something to be more readily engaged with, rather than something tedious and out of reach?



Duncombe, Stephen. Dream: Re-imagining Progressive Politics in an Age of Fantasy. New York: The New Press, 2007.