Advertising Image: Six Feet Under

When Professor Lipton mentioned that the advertisement we analyzed did not necessarily have to be from a magazine, I jumped at the chance to look deeper into the image above.

The image is from the front cover of the season one DVD set of my favourite television series Six Feet Under. While this image is not from a magazine, I do believe it is a very valid advertisement; it is meant to pull the audience, or in this case the consumer, in and entice them to buy the product.

In this image we see the nose and mouth of a person who is lying down, The white of the person's skin immediately signifies death, as do the words "Six Feet Under". But then, how is death appealing? Death is appealing because it is unknown; after all, only the dead know what it's like to die.

Cleverly though, the makers of the image have rid it of fear in order to make it more appealing. The use of a bright lipstick, which has been partially applied to the mouth of the dead person suggests a certain liveliness, especially when juxtaposed against the person's pale white skin. In a sense, the lipstick is covering up anything fearful about death buy presenting the consumer with something familiar: lipstick. In addition, the person applying the lipstick is wearing cloves, which signifies a certain safety, as if to say "Yes, this person is dead, but it's okay because I'm wearing gloves.

The image is an effective one because it advertises what Six Feet Under is all about (in addition to being quite eye-catching). I believe Six Feet Under's main goal was to normalize death, remove the fear from and, and sometimes even make fun of it. As one of the show's main characters once stated "...if you rearrange the letters in 'funeral', you get real fun" (Six Feet Under, 2001).

>Six Feet Under. Dir. Alan Ball. Perf. Francis Conroy, Peter Krouse, Lauren Ambrose Michael C. Hall. HBO 2001

National Media Education Week

I’ll admit that I had never heard of National Media Education Week prior to enrolling in Dr. Lipton’s class. I definitely think it is a neat idea since most everything we do, see, touch, smell, and hear is related to media. However, I must also admit that I approached the notion of participating in this specialized week with a rather fearful attitude.

I guess I was just expecting my participation to come in the form of a rally or fair, which doesn’t really excite me as I’m not a lover of large crowds, even if they are gathering for a good cause. However, in exploring National Media Education Week’s website I found a section entitled “Get Involved,” which outlined several things that I could do in order to participate. The one that stuck out to me the most was “participate in buy nothing day.” Yes! Now this was something I could do. In fact, upon learning about Buy Nothing Day through my previous blog post, I spread the word to all of my family and friends, who were universally delighted by the idea. After all, with the economy in the state that it is, we can all afford to save a little money! On November 27th, both my wallet and my student card with surely go untouched.

I also jumped at the chance to fill out Media Education Project’s survey regarding the transition from secondary to post-secondary education. I looked forward to reminiscing about my high school media-based education, as I was blessed with a teacher who had an unwavering passion for the subject. She even went so far as to implement a brand new film studies course into my high school. Thinking of her exponentially increased by inspiration and motivation. Thus, in an effort to improve my involvement in the coming years, I have signed up for the National Media Education Week Bulletin, in hopes that it will act as a friendly reminder and provide me with even more ways I could participate.

As for this years media education week, I must sat that I have gained a much greater appreciation of media education.  Through thoroughly exploring National Media Education Week’s website, and participating a few key activities, I have realized the true importance of media education.  Media is all around us, and it is incredibly important for present and future generations to be media literate.  I now realize just how lucky I was/am to be emerssed in media education. 

"Get Involved." National Media Education Week. 2008. 6 Nov 2008 < http://www.mediaeducationweek.ca/involved_ideas.htm >.

"Sign up for the national media education week bulletin." National Media Education Week. 2008. 21 Nov 2008 < http://www.mediaeducationweek.ca/bulletin_thankyou.htm >.

"The Shift from Secondary to Post-Secondary Education." Media Education Project. 2008. 18 Nov 2008 < http://mediaeducationproject.ca/polls/index.php?sid=27149&lang=en >.

Media Hegemonies: Disney and Torstar

What if all media were owned by one company? It seems that that is the direction we are heading.

I find it strange that Walt Disney Corporation, a company which owns movie production labels such as Miramax, Buena Vista and Miramax also owns the ABC television network. After all ABC broadcasts “Ebert and Roeper at the Movies”, a television show which focuses solely on reviewing upcoming feature films.

Does this mean that Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper are obligated to love ever Disney title that they view?  That sounds like a conspiracy theory, but perhaps the they are obligated to at least feature Disney’s releases on their program, even if they garner a negative review – there’s no such thing as bad publicity, right?

However, Disney CEO Michael Eisner had this to say about Walt Disney Cooperation’s ownership of ABC: "I would prefer ABC not to cover Disney...it's inappropriate for Disney to be covered by Disney...ABC News knows that I would prefer them not to cover [Disney]” (The Guardian, 2002 Par. 7).

Really?  Check out this promo for ABC’s “The Wonderful World of Disney”:



The Torstar Corporation also delves into cross media ownership. In addition to the Toronto Star, it owns seventy community newspapers including The Hamilton Spectator, and The Kitchener-Waterloo Record (Media Ownership Issues, 2001). Torstar also has a 20% stake in CTVglobemedia (Wikipedia). This kind of cross media ownership greatly limits the public's access to diversified opinions and information. For example, we are basically getting the same news whether we read it in The Hamilton Spectator or The Toronto Star, or view it on the CTV six o’clock news. It’s all the same.

The implications of cross media ownership greatly increase the importance of independent media sources. Thankfully, there are websites such as www.independantmedia.ca, which provides the public with a directory of non-corporate journalism sites. It is also the official web site of MANA (the Media Alliance for New Activism), “Canada's largest network of independent media groups. This website of MANA seeks simply to aid those who are looking for alternatives, or wish to get involved in building independent media” (Independent Media, Par. 4) I can only hope that sources like these will prevent the rise of one greedy, giant media owner. Having access to only one source of information is a lot like having access to only one of your five senses – it would forever force you to experience and learn about the world in a singular way, causing you to miss out on the variety in the would around you. 

"A Directory of Non-Corporate Journalism." Independent Media. 19 Nov 2008
< http://www.independentmedia.ca/ >.

Attallah, Paul., Regan, Leslie. "Media Ownership Issues." Introduction to Communication. 24 Sep 2001. University of Ottawa. 19 Nov 2008
< http://courseweb.edteched.uottawa.ca/CMN1120/mediaownership.htm >.

Cowling, Jamie. "Protect us from Disney." The Guardian. 06 May 2002. 19 Nov 2008
< http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/may/06/mondaymediasection1 >.

"Torstar." Wikipedia. 19 Nov 2008 < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torstar >.

Media Log: Media Texts & Economies

The amount of media I am exposed to feels infinite and never-ending. The simple fact is that media is everywhere; nearly everything is media. Even the term “text” when applied to media has a different meaning. Most of us think of the word “text” as referring to only the written word; However, the Media Awareness Network defines the word “text” as “the individual results of media production: a movie, a TV episode, a book, an issue of a magazine or newspaper, an advertisement, an album, a CD, etc.”

Thus, I am exposed to many more “media texts” than I originally thought. On November 22nd, I kept track of my media exposure. In 24 hours, I came in contact with most items listen in the definition above. I listened to two CD’s (Radiohead and Fleet Foxes). I also took in an episode of “Mad Men” on DVD, and read through chapters in my zoology and a crime and criminology textbooks. In addition, I went to see a production of the wildly popular musical Sweeney Todd, which featured a number of costumed actors singing in front of incredibly intricate set pieces. I was also handed a media text in the form of a program which featured colour photographs, advertisements, and biographies of the cast and crew. However, I tend to avoid both magazines and newspapers, and instead refer to the Internet for my daily dose of news related media texts.

My participation in media economies is daily. While I consider myself to be quite a frugal person, I do still consume various media entities. On November 22nd however, the only thing I purchased was a single ticket to a musical (which was quite cheap as it was a community theatre production). That being said, I did buy the CD’s to which I listened, and the DVD I watched, as well as the textbooks I read.

Boles, Derek. "The Language of Media Literacy: A Glossary of Terms." Media Awareness Network. 2008. 23 Nov 2008 < http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/teaching_backgrounders/media_literacy/glossary_media_literacy.cfm >.

Net Neutrality: Yes Please!

Net neutrality is defined as “the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet” (Google). However, big business wants to take over the Internet, causing a battle between public and private interests.

Big businesses are hoping to control what we can and can not access via the Internet. Each Internet provider could create their own distinct “menu”, which provides consumers with a few select options, while restricting their access to others. For example, Bell users may have the option of using Google.com, while anyone subscribing to Rogers would have to use an alternate (and possibly inferior) search engine.

Network Neutrality is incredibly important because without it, “startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay for a top spot on the Web” (Save the Internet). In essence, the Internet would come to be entirely based on money. The more money you have, the more options you would get-not unlike cable television. Through the implementation of this method, Internet providers would cause the costs of posting audio and video to skyrocket, “silencing bloggers and amplifying the big media companies” (Save the Internet)

However, I don’t think I would be incorrect in stating that the majority of the general public is in favour of a free Internet. Free Internet creates equality among consumers, and in a world that is so bound to the World Wide Web, this in incredibly important. We use the Internet for banking, sending family photos, planning vacations, and contacting friends. Do we really want our ability to do such things to be put at risk because of big business?
The public simply wants freedom and the absence of Internet-based discrimination, while Internet providers desire what most companies do: money and control.

I am on the side of Internet inventor Tim Berners-Lee who was quoted as saying: “The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net" (Google).

"Frequently Asked Questions." Save the Internet. 23 Nov 2008 < http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#giant >.

"A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users ." Google. 23 Nov 2008 <http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html >.

Culture Jamming: Unilever

Being faced with the topic of culture jamming, I was reminded of a news story I saw many moons ago about the growing controversy between the distinctly different Dove and Axe ads - the former embracing real beauty, and the later embracing the opposite. However, this wouldn’t be such a big deal if it weren’t for one major, often overlooked, detail: both Dove and Axe are brands owned by Unilever, a multi-national, multi-million dollar company, with over four hundred different brands under its belt (Introducing Unilever, Par. 1)

A man named Rye Clifton noticed this, and in a brilliant act of culture jamming, remade a Dove ad called “Onslaught” in an attempt to expose Unilever’s hypocritical messages. Below is the original “Onslaught” ad:



Here is Rye Clifton’s version:



Mr. Clifton works in the field of marketing and resides in Virginia (CNN). In regards to his video, he told the Toronto Star that he was simply trying to “add to the conversation that was already happening online” (2007). However, his video, which has a running time of only one minute and twenty-three seconds, made such an impact that it was featured on a CNN news broadcast.

I for one am thankful for Mr. Clifton’s culture jamming, as it helped shed some much needed light on Unilever’s hypocritical ways. Sadly, when confronted with the backlash resulted from the escalating Dove/Axe controversy, Anita Larson, Unilever spokeswoman, remarked that the Axe ads were “clearly spoofs” (LA Times Par. 5) She also went on to say that the Dove ads were “dedicated to making women feel more beautiful” (LA Times, Par. 6).

Even though Unilever denies any wrong doing, I still believe culture jamming is a valid and much needed form of expression. It gets an opinion across to the masses, and causes people to stop and question what is going on around them. Mr. Clifton's culture jam definitely opened my eyes, and made me question Dove's so-called Campaign for Real Beauty, a campaign which I previously supported.

"Introducing Unilever." 2008. 20 Nov 2008 < http://www.unilever.com/ourcompany/aboutunilever/introducingunilever/?linkid=navigation >.

Semuels, Alana. "Group has Axe to grind with Unilever ." Los Angeles Times. 10 Oct 2007. 20 Nov 2008 < http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/10/business/fi-unilever10 >.

Wells, Jennifer. "Taking the Axe to Unilever." The Toronto Star. 27 Nov 2007. 20 Nov 2008 < http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/280524 >.

The American Presidential Election

The popularity of the United States presidential election is at an all time high. Sometimes I feel like I can’t escape it. I do live in Canada, right? But then, things were shaken up this year. Instead of the usual two boring old white guys, we have an African American man running for president, a woman ran for president, and now we have Sarah Palin, the gun toting Governor of Alaska. I'll keep my comments about candidates to myself; I don't want this to turn into a rant.

However, I will say that the days of sitting in a room listening to "seven hours of talk"(Postman 45) are certainly over. The election, now more than ever, is immersed in media - in visuals and in technology.

We can observe candidates’ clothing, their hairstyles, and their spouses. We can join Facebook groups to support our favourite candidate, wear clothing with their faces on it, or put bumper stickers on our cars. Even the candidates themselves are getting in on the act. I recently saw video of Barack Obama discussing the music he had on his iPod.

Still, it irks me that more people vote for American Idol than vote for the presidential elections. If that doesn’t define how media-obsessed our culture is, then what does? It seems that if we can't do something from the comfort of our couches, we simply won't do it.



Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business.
New York: Penguin, 1986.