While I agree with some of Rosalind Ford's points in her "Snarl of the Month", I must say I disagree with the statement "The 'media' is NOT going to get you" and her main theme that we should stop blaming the media.I agree that women care too much what others think (what a surprise -- we're only conditioned that way from birth, and *because* of our gender), and that we should stop doing this. And I agree that the people who criticized us for not conforming are not people whose opinions we should care about, nor should we care about the opinions of small-minded, sheeplike people who "follow the herd". And I certainly believe in people taking personal responsibilities for their actions and behaviors, especially if they result in harm to themselves or others. I am not going to suggest that murderers and rapists -- or even bulimics or addicted people -- should be able to dismiss their personal *choice* to do what they do by saying the media influenced them.
But I totally disagree with the idea that the media is not going to get you. Aside from the most obvious recent example of just how dangerously the media can get to you (the death of Princess Diana), the media gets to us in subtle and insidious ways we're not always aware of.
For example, I don't know where Ms. Ford lives, but I live in a suburb just outside Chicago and commute into the city to work every day. And I can tell you there is NO escape from 'the media'. (This may depend on how you define 'the media'; but I include all advertising in the blanket term "the media"). I drive past billboards bigger then the apartment building I live in while I'm heading down the expressway into the city. Billboards on busses and bus benches at bus stops, ads painted on the sides of buildings, advertisements in magazines, even in daily newspapers -- I have no control over whether or not I am bombarded by these. I don't have ANY say on this "eye pollution". I have to look out the windshield to drive! And if I want the information in the newspaper or magazine, I have to put up with it. But it isn't merely eye pollution. It's brain pollution. In our utterly capitalistic society, selling things is the top priority -- so this visual bombardment of advertising is not going to stop and will probably only continue to get worse. We don't notice it because we're so USED to it. And THAT is why it is so insidious.
On a billboard near a highway exit near my house: "Body Shots" -- a picture of a half-naked man with his head tipped back from the front, a lime wedge on one shoulder, a salt shaker on the other, and a shot glass on his forehead, with a bottle of some brand of tequila to his right. There's not a stitch of clothing on the body of this man, so far as you can see, and you can't see his face either. Of course, you only see him from the waist up. But as a human being, he doesn't exist -- he's just a "type" of man, a faceless body to project fantasies onto.
Now, the only relatively new thing about this is that for once a MAN's body is being exploited to sell something, rather than a woman's. But I remember when MTV first came out and it became apparent that music videos were breaking the sex barrier and developing "equal opportunity exploitation" -- showing more male flesh than was typical up to that point in advertising (and let's face it, music videos are just very artistic, or sometimes not, advertisements to get you to buy or like a song). I remember saying to a male friend of mine as we vegged out one night in front of MTV, "Hey, I wonder if they keep using men's bodies more and more in videos and commericals, if young men will develop eating disorders like young women already have."
Well, I read a study last winter that indicated that eating disorders among young men were on the rise. What a surprise! The media will NOT get you?? I don't think so. It's just that it took longer to get to men than it has to get to women, because advertisers didn't realize until the past decade or so that they could exploit men's bodies and use them to sell things as successfully as they've always used women's bodies for the same thing.
The problem is that we're all so used to this, we don't even pay attention to it. And it doesn't merely affect how we think of ourselves as women or men -- it also affects how we think of ourselves as white people, black people, people of different religions. Media and advertising largely rely on steretypes to sell things. They need instantly recognizable "types" of people to structure the advertising or TV show or whatever. We think we don't pay any attention to these things, but in reality, these stereotypes seep into our consciousnesses without us realizing it. We come to accept them "as is". The less you think about them, the more you try to tune them out, the more subtle their influence -- because they're there in your visual memories, but you haven't consciously examined them and reviewed whether or not these are realistic or accurate. Sure there are more people of color on TV and in movies and advertising these days (as opposed to the 70s and 80s) who *aren't* gang-bangers, prostitutes, or drug dealers -- but there's still a strong visual presence of negative stereotypes. It's these types of things we're less likely to resist. Unless you are a person of color, you're going to more or less dismiss them because you think "This doesn't apply to me." But it does -- and it influences how you view people of color. Or women. Or men. Or the mentally ill. Or ... pick your group. And therefore it influences how we all get along with each other in this society.
Advertising is part of the media. The media can't exist without it to fuel production. Remember when cable TV came out? How everyone thought it was going to be so great becaues there were no commercials? Well... is there a non-premium nationwide cable network without commercials?? Not that I am aware of. Not even local channels with nation-wide distribution in the US. And there is no escape unless you get rid of all typical means of mass communication -- magazines, newspapers, television, the Web -- or move to the middle of nowhere and cut yourself off from the world.
And these days, *children* see much of the typical advertising -- because there is no escape from it, it's out there for everyone. You can't blindfold your kids. And sometimes I think it's the clothed or partially clothed ads that are worse than the ones with nearly naked men or women. A child has no context or experience of life to place these images in their proper perspective (and tell themselves this is not the way "reality" is or "life" is). Is it any wonder that the gaunt male models of the Calvin Klein perfume ads have inspired an increase in eating disorders among young men? The media may not get us adults, because we can view these things in a detached and more analytical way... but what about how children will view these things? The media WILL get them because they haven't seen what we've seen and they're not yet versed in the ways of advertising, and the manipulation designed by market research... And what they unthinkingly accept now -- since they're bombarded by it -- will be ingrained in their thinking tomorrow. Who's going to wake them up? Parents that babysit them with the television? I don't think so.
I'm sorry, I believe that advertisers and graphic designers and the people who work in television, newspaper/magazine/billboard advertising, and using the web, have a social responsibility to not perpetuate unhealthy and false images of people. To perpetuate such stereotypes helps keep us from progressing as a society and from getting along with each other. And we already know it's harming our youth. I'm not suggesting censorship or that movies, TV series, or any entertainment for mature audiences should be toned down for "family" viewing. There are some things not meant for children and teenagers to consume until they are old enough to understand it. But those things shouldn't be on the sides of busses. If I want to see gaunt young men wearing nothing but a certain brand of cotton briefs, I can go out and buy a magazine for that. If I want to see implied sex, I can go out and rent R rated movies. I shouldn't have to be FORCED to see this day in and day out in my immediate environment.
But I am. And so is anyone else living in suburban or urban America because it is in the advertising that surrounds us. I have no intentions of moving to the middle of nowhere and getting rid of all mass communication technology I use -- the TV, VCR, cable, etc. I can't stop driving or taking public transportation to work -- and there are just as many billboards in the subway stations as there are off the highway -- probably more, only smaller. And even if we all lobbied to have certain billboard contents banned, it would take DECADES to get this sort of thing changed, because the government exists mostly to support the objectives of big business in this country. The corporations would probably protest on the grounds of first amendment rights to free speech. And they would never permit it. Oh sure, they're now banning billboards that advertise tobacco products. Only 20 or 30 years after it became glaringly obvious smoking caused cancer. And after the companies themselves have made BILLIONS -- and spent millions fighting this tooth and nail, and suceeding most of the time by "honoring" politicians.
If you think that none of this affects you -- go to another country, especially in Europe. Like Germany or France. Where the TV stations have all the commercials in one big hunk at the end of the hour or half-hour, rather than every five minutes during the TV show (and less and less TV show and more commercial time every year). Where they don't have to deal with the constant visual bombardment of advertising -- even in big cities like Vienna -- in moderately sized 'burbs in the US. Stay there for a while. Then come back and reel from the sensory overload as you get culture-shock from your own culture. You'll see how the media "gets" you.
Where do you stand on how big an influence the media has on how we think and feel? Send e-mail to Grrowl! and let us know! Responses will be published in Toothmarks.
