Thursday, 27 September 2012

Final Blog Assessment - Celebrity Culture: Who are we listening to?


A prevailing celebrity culture in modern society is changing who we listen to and why. Thanks to social media and global convergence, the popularizing of certain people who have particular attributes that are deemed socially exceptional and desirable is becoming increasingly more common. As a result, a culture of celebrity worship is rapidly spreading its way across the globe and altering traditional values and ethics. So this begs the question, are we receiving the right messages? This blog will critically examine celebrity culture and will seek to explore whether or not an emerging celebrity culture in society is doing more harm than good.

Sterheimer (2011) defines celebrity culture as the ephemeral atmosphere that surrounds fame, and includes the personal lives of the famous and the products sold directly or indirectly on the idea that their use will make the consumer be more like the celebrated. Evidence of this culture is all around us. Every time we turn on the television, open a magazine, listen to the radio and trawl through our favorite webpages we are bombarded by celebrity endorsements. Celebrities are telling us what me must have, what will make our lives better and how we can be more like them.

An example of the prevailing celebrity culture in society is Michelle Bridges’ 12 week body transformation program. It is “a 12 week program that will change your body for the rest of your life,” according to the celebrity personal trainer Michelle Bridges who has shot to fame through her involvement in Channel 10’s The Biggest Loser program. Bridges’ endorsement of the program has already grabbed attention with over 258,000 people “liking” the program and Brides on Facebook. But what makes this program so popular has nothing to do with any scientifically proven formula that gives credibility to the program actually working, it is because it has been designed by Bridges, the famous personal trainer who helps obese people lose weight on a reality television show.

The growing trend of popularizing certain people who have particular attributes that society deem exceptional has instilled itself into many disciplines of life affecting the way in which society receives and interprets information (Marshall 2010: 458). This has been greatly aided by the advent of social media and increasing levels of global convergence. Due to globalization, the world is increasingly becoming smaller and smaller with traditional barriers now being overcome. As a result, cultural diversity is spreading across the globe and influencing the nature of traditional social, cultural, environmental, political and economic practices. A global marketplace has well and truly emerged resulting in shared values and customs becoming more commonplace across countries. This has helped to spread celebrity culture throughout society.

Thanks largely to the rise of social media, the way in which information flows and gets absorbed is now changing. Old media and new media are colliding with the traditional audience now also becoming the source of news and information. Social media websites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube allow anyone to publish content and voice an opinion that can instantly be shared with the rest of the world. This is the single biggest factor in the rise of celebrity culture. People no longer have to rely on traditional media such as television, newspapers and radio to connect with an audience, it is now possible to connect with the entire globe through the click of a button on a computer whilst sitting in your living room. As a result, it is possible for anyone to say anything and spread their message to a large global audience. The message being distributed doesn’t have to be correct either so there is a worrying lack of accountability as there is often very little or no consequences for what is published through social media forums.

The reason celebrity culture is damaging is because we are listening to and popularizing people who are famous for being famous. A classic example of this is the Kardashian family. The family shot to prominence thanks to the creation of a reality television program which started on the back of the publicity the family received following the release of a sex tape involving one of their daughters, Kim. The family is not famous because they have made a significant contribution to society, or because they are the most intelligent people in the world, they are famous because an audience watches a show that follows their daily lives.

According to Bentley (2011) the culture of celebrity worship has lead to women veering off track into a culture of empty-headed narcissism. This is in reference to a survey that young women would rather win a television beauty contest than the Nobel Peace Prize. As a result, some very intelligent younger women are dumbing down to appear hotter and cuter and putting their looks and image above their brains – the reason being because ''hot'' is seen to be desirable (Bentley 2011). This is a worrying concern and an example of why celebrity culture is so damaging.

The power of celebrities does have some positives though, particularly in relation to creating awareness. Celebrities are able to grab the public’s attention and give campaigns the kind of impact most organizations can only dream off (Cousins 2012). An example of this is Sam Newman’s interview with 60 Minutes in 2008 after he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Newman’s plea for men to “be tested and enjoy life,” had a profound impact and lead to a surge in prostate cancer awareness.


The reason for this, thanks to the prevailing celebrity culture in society, is a tendency for people to feel a strong emotional connection to celebrities, similar to that of a family member (Cousins 2012). So a message delivered by a celebrity can really resonate with a substantial amount of people.

While there are some positive aspects resulting from an increasingly proficient celebrity culture in our society, a culture of celebrity worship is doing much more harm than good. Worshiping and placing greater importance on what is said by people who are famous is damaging our society. We are receiving messages from the wrong people. We should be listing to those who are experts in their field and those who have proven to be credible sources of information. We should not be listening to the people who are just yelling the loudest and are easiest to hear. Anyone can make noise, but it is the substance of the noise that is most important.

References:

Bentley, P 2011, Celebrity culture ‘is making educated women dim-witted’, Mail Online, Retrieved 22nd September 2012, <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2004072/Celebrity-culture-making-educated-women-dim-witted.html>

Bridges, M 2012, Michelle Bridges 12 Week Body Transformation, Michelle Bridges 12 Week Body Transformation, Retrieved 30th August 2012, <http://www.12wbt.com/> 

Cousins, S 2012, Start Power, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia, Retrieved 27th September 2012, <http://www.prostate.org.au/articleLive/pages/Star-Power.html>

Marshall, D 2010, ‘The Specular Economy’, Symposium: Celebrity around the World, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 498-502

Sterheimer, K 2011, Celebrity Culture and the American Dream, Routledge, New York.

Thursday, 30 August 2012

Week 8 – Celebrity Culture: Who are we listening to?


“A 12 week program that will change your body for the rest of your life!” That’s the claim celebrity personal trainer Michelle Bridges makes when selling her 12 week body transformation program.

For those who live under a rock, Michelle Bridges is the personal trainer who shot to fame through her involvement in Channel 10’s The Biggest Loser program. 

 
She must be good, and the program must work, because over 258,000 people like Michelle Bridges on Facebook! 258,000 people can’t be wrong! Or can they? She certainly has her critics, and her claim that her program is tailored to those trying to lose 50kgs as well as fitness fanatics is a little hard to believe.

At this point I must point out that I have nothing against Michelle Bridges and her program, it may work, it may not. But what makes it so popular has nothing to do with any scientifically proven formula, it is because it has been designed by Michelle Bridges, that famous person we seen on TV all the time helping obese people lose weight!


This is a perfect example of the prevailing celebrity culture in society. The popularizing of certain people who have certain attributes that society deem exceptional. This has instilled itself into many disciplines of life from the famed in the medical profession to the way that we read and interpret politicians (Marshall 2010: 498).

This has changed who we listen to and why. But, are we receiving the right message?

References:

Marshall, D 2010, ‘The Specular Economy’, Symposium: Celebrity around the World, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 498-502

Bridges, M 2012, Michelle Bridges 12 Week Body Transformation, Michelle Bridges 12 Week Body Transformation, retrieved 30th August 2012 <http://www.12wbt.com/>

Saturday, 25 August 2012

Week 7 – The Effectiveness of Narrowcasting in the Production of Diasporic Media


Narrowcasting is the dissemination of information to target a narrow audience by aiming media messages at specific segments defined by values, gender, preferences, age or demographic attributes (Mitchell 2011: np). This definition helps us to understand why it is commonly used in the production of diasporic media.

Diasporic communities are becoming more and more common thanks to globalisation. Due to vastly improved modes of transportation, and the increasing acceptance of migrates around the world, pockets of diasporic communities are increasingly appearing across the world.

The production of diasporic media serves as a way of maintaining cultural integrity and values amongst diaspora communities, contributes to ethinc cohesion and allows the community to maintain a meaningful connection with their homeland (Karim 1998: 2). The dissemination of diasporic media allows members of the community to navigate their way through the mass media of the host nation and avoid the imperialism that is prominent in the Eastern and Western world.

Traditionally the distribution of diasporic media had centered on weekly newspapers, magazines, radio and small-scale television programming. However, the continuing growth of digital media is changing the way in which the media is able to reach and target diaspora communities (Karim 1998).

Digital media and online video production provides media organisations with a greater reach and a medium which is much more accessible, circumnavigating the traditional broadcasting regulations imposed on print, radio and television.

So for the reasons outlined above, narrowcasting is very important and effective in the production of diasporic media.

References:

Mitchell, G 2011, Narrowcasting: What it is and what it achieves, Convenience Advertising, Retrieved 25th August 2012, <http://www.conads.com/info/general/Content/get/41/itemId/> 


Karim, K 1998, ‘From Ethnic Media to Global Media: Transnational Communication Networks Among Diasporic Communities’, International Comparative Research Group Strategic Research and Analysis Canadian Heritage, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1-23

Monday, 20 August 2012

Week 6 – Al Jazeera: The Fox News of the Arab world?


Al Jazeera is an independent news corporation dedicated to covering and uncovering stories in the Arab region. The news channel, which is owned by the state of Qatar and based in Doha, now has over sixty bureaus around the world that span six different continents (Al Jazeera 2012: np).

However, despite the ever-increasing credibility of Al Jazeera as a leading alternative news source, a large degree of skepticism still remains about the independent news corporation in the western world. So the question that needs to be asked is, is Al Jazeera a counter to Western media imperialism or a mirror version of Fox News style propaganda?

Propaganda is a very specific type of manipulation. It involves preaching a compelling message and reinforcing it continuously. This is what Fox News is notorious for and what a large proportion of the Western world believe Al Jazeera do. But is there evidence to back this up?

Skeptics will say yes, but I’m not so sure.

Al Jazeera appears to simply cover the alternate point of view and highlight the plights of many that the Western media simply chooses to ignore. The independent organization received widespread acclaim for its coverage of the uprising in Tunisia (an issue initially ignored by most Western media) and was the channel the US President had to tune into in order to watch the protests in Egypt as they began to unfold (The Canadian Charger 2011: np).

Like all news corporations, Al Jazeera toes the party line. But is their message any worse than Western media imperialism? The answer appears to be no.

References:

Al Jazeera 2012, Corporate Profile, Al Jazeera, Retrieved 19th August 2012,

Al Jazeera 2012, Timeline: Tunisia’s uprising, Al Jazeera, Retrieved 19th August 2012,

Boaz, C 2011, Fourteen Propaganda Techniques Fox “News” Uses to Brainwash Americans, Truth Out, Retrieved 19th August 2012, <http://truth-out.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=1964:fourteen-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-to-brainwash-americans>

MacNicol, G 2011, Even President Obama Is Watching Al Jazeera, Business Insider, Retrieved 19th August 2012, <http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-01-29/entertainment/30035180_1_al-jazeera-crisis-egyptian-president>

The Canadian Charger 2011, Western media vs. Al Jazeera, Retrieved 19th August 2012, <http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=811>

Monday, 13 August 2012

Week 5 – Making Culture


The Internet is increasingly becoming an important tool in the way in which we contribute to our national culture. But what is interesting is that many of us wouldn’t even realize that we are using the Internet to do this when we connect online. Every time we post our thoughts, pictures, music or stories onto sites such as YouTube, Facebook, Instagram or Twitter, we are contributing to our national culture.

National culture can be defined as norms, behaviours, beliefs and customs that exist within the population of a sovereign nation (BusinessDictionary.com 2012: np).

So every time you upload a video clip to YouTube or change your status on Facebook, you are sharing your culture with the world. The stories you write, and the way in which you write them, inadvertently portray your values, beliefs and customs. However, there is a flip side. The use of social networks to portray your personal thoughts and views also enables others to comment or pass judgment on what you post.

So this begs the question, will social networks change our culture? Are we altering our personal values and behaviors in order to avoid criticism as a result of going against the social norm?

However, social networks also provide a medium for a diaspora population to gain a new found sense of belonging by connecting with their traditional roots. Check out Hot Peppa Sauce as a great example of NYC resident Ameer Bacchus connecting with his West Indian roots demonstrating how powerful a tool the Internet is in contributing to national culture.

References:

Bacchus, A 2012, Hot Peppa Sauce Yuh West Indian Fix, Hot Peppa Sauce, Retrieved 13th August 2012, <http://www.hotpeppasauce.net/>

BusinessDictionary.com 2012, National Culture, BusinessDictionary.com, Retrieved 13th August 2012, <http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/national-culture.html>
 
Kallas, P 2011, Will Social Networks and Sharing Change Our Culture?, Dreamgrow, Retrieved 13th August 2012, <http://www.dreamgrow.com/will-social-networks-and-sharing-change-our-culture/>

Kameliaculture 2012, Sharing West Indian Culture Through Comics Online, Culture Kamelia, Retrieved 13th August 2012 <http://cultureatkamelia.wordpress.com/2012/07/15/sharing-west-indian-culture-through-comics-online>

Wikipedia 2012, Diaspora, Wikipedia, Retrieved 13th August 2012, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diaspora>

Monday, 6 August 2012

Week 4 – The Olympics: A Positive or Negative Global Event?


The 2012 Summer Olympic Games are currently underway in London amid much hype and fanfare. Parochial and patriotic Brits are singing the praises of the host nation and promoting their backyard to the world. There is little doubt that Summer Olympic Games are the biggest sporting event in the world, but are the Games themselves a positive or negative global event?

Staging the Olympic Games requires a long and expensive commitment by the host city. First it must prepare a bid in an attempt (there is no guarantee) to win the rights to host the games, spend seven years preparing for the Games if the bid is successful, successfully stage the Olympic and then deal with the much longer post-Games era (Cashman 2002).

Other impacts also include alterations in the design of the city, the representation of a city/country and its culture, increased cost and taxes and changes in governance and public decision-making (Cashman 2002).

However, the staging of the Olympic Games leads to urban regeneration, increased housing availability, improvements in public transport and local infrastructure, an increase in international tourism and more jobs. Rose & Spiegel 2009 also demonstrate how countries that host the Olympic Games enjoy a substantive permanent increase in trade, known as the “Olympic Effect”.

So while there are both positive and negative effects of hosting the Olympic Games, the ability to showcase a city/country’s benefits to the world, as well as the proven trade benefits to hosting the Games, means the Olympic Games are truly a positive global event.

References:

Cashman, R 2002, Impact of the Games on Olympic host cities, CEO UAB, Retrieved 6th August 2012, <http://olympicstudies.uab.es/lectures/web/pdf/cashman.pdf>

Imperial College London 2012, Political, social and economic aspects of the Olympic games, Imperial College London, Retrieved 6th August 2012, <http://olympics.pthimon.co.uk/index2.htm>

Rose, A & Spiegel, M 2009, The Olympic Effect, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper Series, Retrieved 6th August 2012, <http://www.frbsf.org/publications/economics/papers/2009/wp09-06bk.pdf>

Monday, 30 July 2012

Week 3 – Building a Global Media Empire


At first thought, building your own global media empire from scratch sounds like a herculean task that would be virtually impossible to do. Surely it would take millions and millions of dollars in start up costs, not to mention at least a decade of dedicated work to even begin to scratch the surface, right? Wrong!

In this day and age it is possible to start and run your own global media empire from your very own living room! All you need is a small amount of money, creative thinking and a huge drive. So read on to find out about what real world equivalents I would emulate if I were looking to build my own personal media empire.

A media empire is an organization that has a wide reaching audience that it can instantly communicate to through various forms of communication e.g tv, radio, newspapers, magazines or the internet.

Examples that immediately come to mind are News Corporation, Disney, Sony, Facebook and MySpace.

However, the two companies I would emulate are TechCrunch and Mashable. While you may not have heard of these American based companies (yet!), they are both great examples of using social media to build a rapid audiences and turning the popularity of their websites into commercial ventures.

Both companies followed the same simple principles for success: find a platform, identify your niche, grow an audience, use rich media, build your network, work hard and think big! (Brown 2011)

References:

Brown, D 2011, How to Build a Media Empire From Your Bedroom With Just a Laptop, Danny Brown, Retrieved 29th July 2012, <http://dannybrown.me/2011/08/29/how-to-build-a-media-empire-from-your-bedroom-with-just-a-laptop/>

Mashable 2012, About Us, Mashable, Retrieved 29th July 2012, <http://mashable.com/about/>

TechCrunch 2012, About TechCrunch, TechCrunch, Retrieved 29th July 2012, <http://techcrunch.com/about/>