Duped: The Media & Pop Culture Influence Our Food Choices

Militainment

I wasn't surprised when I read Roger Stahl's "Have You Played the War on Terror?". I learned a lot of new things, sure, but it didn't surprise me. I've always understood that the military and entertainment have always been intertwined, i.e. "militainment". As we discussed in class, military-based video game franchises like Medal of Honor and Call of Duty having massive and extremely loyal fanbases. This is ESPECIALLY true with the latter; according to an article on Eurogamer.net, there are 40 million monthly active players across all of the Call of Duty titles, and more than 1.6 billion hours of online gameplay have been logged in Modern Warfare 3, the latest game in the series. These numbers are massive within the video game industry.

However, the idea of militainment also extends to movies. The military generally supports films that have them featured in the storyline, seeing them as a positive example of public relations. For example, the majority of Michael Bay's movies feature strong military support. For his Transformers film series - of which I am not personally a fan, but will serve this post - military soldiers from four different bases served as extras, and authentic uniforms were provided for the other actors. Military vehicles were also loaned for the series, such as the Decepticon Starscream assuming the form of an F-22 Raptor fighter jet.

The reason I am specifically mentioning Transformers is that the military was featured extensively enough through each of the films, actually helping the Autobots fight the Decepticons, that several critics accused the series of being essentially one loud, expensive military recruitment commercial. I disagree. The presence of the military adds realism - which you could probably use when the stars of your movie are giant talking alien robots - and they are not the focus of the film. In contrast, Act of Valor, an action movie starring active duty Navy SEALS, was admittedly made with the intention of attracting new recruits, as discussed in this article for The New York Times. I am not criticizing the film at all - I haven't even seen it - but critics did note the undeniably jingoistic tone that underscores the film, which sets it apart from most other war movies. Installments in this genre generally carry strong anti-war messages and instead explore the psychological impact combat has on soldiers, some examples off the top of my head being Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Jarhead and Brothers.

social media and the 2008 election

After reading Naomi Klein's article "How Corporate Branding Took Over the White House", I thought back to the previous election in 2008. I remember hearing from teachers and parents that the teenagers of my generation was becoming surprisingly involved in political and economic debates and causes. I think a lot of that had to due with the fact that our generation had grown up during a particularly contentious time in American history; we experienced 9/11, the subsequent War on Terror and the collapse of the housing bubble, fracturing our economy. A lot of kids in my high school had parents who would ultimately lose their jobs in the fallout. George Bush was unfortunate enough to have all of these miseries occur during his presidency. Now to his credit, Bush did try to deal with the ensuing chaos to the best of his abilities, but a lot of the policies he enacted were undeniably flawed and inevitably controversial, both at home and abroad.

At the end of Bush's presidency America was divided internally and mocked globally. We DID need a change, and America DID need a rebranding. As I said before, teenagers were invested in the upcoming election to a scale never seen before in history, and Barack Obama was well aware of this, much more so than McCain appeared to be.

Obama's campaign was very much influenced by the grassroots movements of the 60s. His campaign was the first to employ social media, using Facebook, Twitter and other sites to develop a strong following among the coveted youth vote. Obama also formed alliances with a number of film and music stars, such as Will Smith and Will.i.am, which also increased his loyalty amongst American youth. Will.i.am in particular ended up being one of Obama's biggest supporters, producing both the "Yes We Can" video mentioned in Klein's article as well as a second video called "We Are The Ones", which similarly featured a number of celebrities discussing their vision of an ideal America against a chant of "O-ba-ma! O-ba-ma!" in the background. I've included links below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghSJsEVf0pU - "We Are The Ones"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY&feature=related - "Yes We Can"

Hell, the article even reminded me about all those "hip" Obama ringtones I heard emanating from so many cell phones that summer, downloaded from official websites. You would never hear an "official" George W. Bush ringtone, although there were plenty of humorous "Bushisms" ripped from television interviews for people to laugh at, such as the ones listed below:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

My point is that Obama connected to youth culture on a level no president ever had before. For all the accusations of social media being impersonal, it felt incredibly personal back in 2008. Instead of waiting for us to come to him, like other presidents would, Obama made an incredible effort in coming to us, and it worked.

Freaky Talking Robots

So today in the TED video, the presenter talked about how companies had actually started working robots whose AI would be constructed from the information one would put up on their Facebook, Twitter or other social networking site.

This prompted several questions from me. First of all, doesn't anyone see the glaringly obvious problem with this idea. We've had lengthy discussions in class about how social networking profiles like Facebook are not wholesome representations of your personality. Everything you post on Facebook you are clearly comfortable with sharing with a mass audience. One of my classmates said today in class that your closest friends share their flaws and anxieties with you - in short, everything that they would not share online with the world - and that's a big part of why you love each other. I completely agree. I know at least for me that if a robot's AI was based on what I posted on Facebook - which is an extremely disturbing thought - it would not be a complete, three-dimensional reconstruction of my personality.

My second question, and the far more pressing one, is simply: WHY? What in the name of my mother's cat would be the purpose of these robots? Why would you ever want to try to download someone's personality into a robot? We talked today in class about the negative psychological effects of seeing a hologram of a deceased love one, and how that could interfere with the healing process. Nowadays, if someone passes away, they leave their Facebook behind, and it becomes a kind of memorial that friends can visit and reminisce by going through pictures and such. It occurred to me after class that if someone recently lost a loved one, and they were unable to move on and had the financial means, then they could actually pay a company like this to use the deceased's Facebook or Twitter to try and give a robot the personality of their deceased love one, "resurrecting" them so to speak in a different body. That to me is not only unhealthy, but it's also unnatural. The sad thing is, I actually find it plausible in today's culture that someone would attempt this.

Facebook and intimacy

"Social networking site users have more friends and more close friends". Really? I read the the title of that article and was a little apprehensive about that claim. I theorized it came down to the definition of "friend", i.e. Facebook.

The article listed some very interesting facts, such as as Americans having more close friends than they did two years ago and an average user of social networking being half as likely to be socially isolated than someone who was not. "Facebook use seems to support intimacy, rather than undermine it", the article says. The more I thought about it, it actually kind of makes sense.

I've talked about in a previous post how Facebook merely transfers your contacts from the real world onto an online platform. This includes all your friends from high school and college. In both institutions you meet great friends and grow close, but in four years all of you will be most likely going your separate ways, to further schooling or jobs that will take you across the country. You try to talk and keep the friendships alive, but inevitably you end up drifting away.

I know that cell phones and e-mail have been used to past to curb this trend, but Facebook really has made it more convenient than ever to keep up with your friends when they move elsewhere. I have friends who have already left college that I keep in contact with through texting and Facebook, and we remain close and continue making plans for reunions. Facebook's tagline is "stay connected", and it more than fulfills its promise. So really, I have to agree that Facebook actually supports intimacy.

Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?...No

After reading the article "Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?", I knew I had to post something on this blog. This article made so much sense to me. We've all probably heard or read accusations that spending time on Facebook - or the internet in general - replaces our desire for human contact, and we search for friends online instead of in the real world now. It's the entire idea behind The Social Network, which is one of my favorite movies.

I am an active user of Facebook, and I do log on at least once a day, usually more. I have a few hundred contacts on Facebook. A lot of them are family and friends, and then there are classmates and coworkers I added to make communication about homework and projects easier. But I have never requested to be friends with someone I have never personally met or accepted a friend request from a stranger. I have never understood the logic behind that.

And here is the true insight of the article: Facebook does not REPLACE your social network. It merely TRANSFERS your contacts from one platform to the other. I agree with Burke's research in that the people who experience loneliness on Facebook are most likely lonely in real life too. Online a Greek brother or sister can have 1000+ friends and then you see the profile of a socially awkward person you know from class who has maybe 30+ friends. Those numbers may not be precise, but they are generally accurate in contrasting the size ratio of the social circles these people would probably have in real life.

Finally, the communication I have with my friends over Facebook doesn't replace my desire to hang out with them in person. I didn't spend Friday night in my room looking at Facebook, I went out with my friends to see The Avengers. I don't know for certain what I'm doing tonight yet, but I guarantee it won't be updating a Facebook status.