Chapter 8 - Producing Identities

Allow me to play the Devil’s Advocate for a moment and ask why is it the media’s responsibility to define someone’s identity? I think most of us are intelligent enough to make up our own minds on who we are, or at least, whom we wish to emulate. Media is a business, they are selling to who is buying. And who is buying has been middle-aged white guys for a long, long time. It’s no wonder that women and minorities have been traditionally under-represented in the media, they weren’t the ones buying product! However, it would be difficult to say that minorities and women are under-represented in media today. We may not always approve of how they are represented, but the programs must be selling product (the attention of the audience) to the advertisers. Take notice that there aren’t throngs of angry, misrepresented audience members protesting shows of minorities or else they would speak out, or at least, cease buying the product and no longer remain that commodity to the advertisers.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I like Spiderman’s uncle Ben as much as the next guy, and I agree that “with great power comes great responsibility.” And there is no doubt that Media has tons of power. They defiantly have a responsibility to not represent images that are overtly harmful to minds that are incapable of disseminating information but there is a limit to this. We must be some form of Gatekeeper and if we don’t agree with a particular representation, than boycott it, speak out against it. If we continue to view the program and advertisements than we are the true enablers to misrepresentation in the media.

There’s obviously a problem with depicting models that are unattainably and unhealthily thin, but there is another issue at work, media continues to lie. How about they try a little truth in advertising for a change? This article mentioned more than just this freakishly thin model, it mentioned lightening Beyonce’s skin and thinning various other models. It’s despicable just how much we are lied to through advertising, this example employs an additional malfeasance by the advertising institution by setting an unrealistic and unhealthy bar for young, female audiences.
It’s defiantly an ethical issue on both fronts and it seems like their breaking two moral laws. There’s really nothing wrong with touching up a photograph to make it look nicer in advertising. Maybe the light wasn’t just right, or the contrasting features didn’t stand out enough. I don’t see an issue with enhancing what is already there. I can’t speak for the other examples as I didn’t see those ads, but when you alter something to the point of creating something that wasn’t there before, like an emaciated waistline, that goes beyond touching up. At that point you may as well be animating an advertisement.

Meaning, Chapter 5

It's interesting the book would mention "Born in the USA" as Regan's campaign song since more recently the same thing happened to McCain. I forget the song (maybe someone can help me out) but during his campaign, McCain used some one's song for his own interpretation and the artist didn't share his view. I have also heard of the "every breath you take" song really being more about stalking than love. These are both very contemporary and valid examples.
The book gets pretty involved in some of the theory behind meaning, but I took away that meaning is very often representational to something in the real world. We live in the real world we need to anchor meaning to something concrete, that's the easy part. However, when we try to give meaning, or rather share our meaning with someone else when discussing something more abstract, that's when different interpretations arise. It becomes very easy to see the same thing and take away completely different meanings as in the TV show example at the end of the chapter illustrates.
My little ones like to play a little joke on me. We pull up to a red stop light and they tell me, "Daddy, red means go, green means stop." Of course they both know full well that this is the inverse of reality, but even at a young age they understand this social code and they understand it so well that they find it ridiculous and humorous to try and fool someone into thinking otherwise. And these codes don't take long to learn. I suppose that is indicative of a social code or else we would have a more difficult time following the rules. Think of the Chinese encyclopedia and how tumultuous that would make our world. No doubt children would adapt faster, but the initial the ill effects would certainly be felt on the young despit their comparatively limited exposure to the codes we employ.