Beatle Mania = Miley Mania?

There are many different levels of fandom in media audiences, but the types that we most likely always hear about are the crazy hysterical fans who have been proven to be very unpredictable. “The literature on fandom is haunted by images of deviance. The fan is consistently characterized (referencing the term’s origins) as a potential fanatic. This means that fandom is seen as excessive, bordering on deranged, behavior”. (McQuail reader 343)

One of the most popular images in recent media history is the Beatles’ fan frenzy. Hundreds of hysterical girls would swarm the band, some stood paralyzed crying, while others at times put their lives in danger to get as close as possible. The music industry had really never before seen such fan devotion, but as the years progressed this has become a standard in fan behavior, more predominately in music. Today we see similar behavior towards Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus by the ‘tweens’ of America.

As these images generally show loving fans, the Beatles story as we all probably know took a tragic turn. When an obsessed fan, Mark David Chapman murdered Beatle John Lennon we have to ask, what happened? How and where does adoration turn into murder?

This type of violence did not stop with Lennon’s death, the other members of the Beatles have been attacked and nearly escaped death at the hands of ‘crazed’ fans. This article http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21485820-663,00.html from April 2007, was about a crazed fan’s attack on Paul McCartney’s home, and also made references to the incident that occurred seven years ago when Beatle, George Harrison was stabbed by a fan. Nearly 40 years after the height of their careers, Beatles members are still living with extreme fandom.

On page 348 of the reader, Joli Jenson talks about the type of Beatle fan that was illustrated in the article. “The psychopathic fan-turned-assassin, he implies, similarly uses mediated celebrities to form an identity, although he kills in order to share their power and fame.” This is basically saying that a fan who kills is one who is socially disjointed from society and uses the connection they feel to a particular celebrity to fill a void in their life. However, there is a point that the person needs to be more connected to the person, and violence or death is what occurs.

Does the constant media attention on celebrities spur on this type of fan obsession, in which a person uses celebrities to fill the void in their own life? Also, should new stars such as like Miley Cyrus be cautious because of the extreme fandom that marks their careers, or is the violence and death that came with the Beatles’ fandom an isolated situation?

ESPN's Influence on Sports

The worldwide leader in sports has been a major influence on my passion for sports as well as countless other individuals who are intrigued by athletic competition. When I was younger I received most of my sports knowledge from the newspaper and Sports Illustrated because it wasn't until I reached the 8th grade that my parents caved in and got cable television. Before this time I would watch Espn, mostly Sportscenter, every opportunity that I had and from a young age I became devoted the network because they gave me all the info I was looking for and expanded my knowledge on other events that I might not have been exposed to.

As the years have gone by there has most certainly been a change in content that reaches the airwaves. The station has aided the "Hollywoodification" of the sports world and as McQuail states on page 343, "The fan is understood to be, as least implicitly, a result of celebrity-the fan is defined as a response to the star system. This mean that passivity is ascribed to the fan - he or she is seen as being brought into existence by the modern celebrity system, via the mass media. " ESPN has given more attention to the personal lives of athletes over recent years and as a result of this the audience is being bombarded by athletes participation on the field and their extracurricular activities outside the playing field. Here is an article that raises some interesting points and examines the old ESPN to the modern day ESPN.

href="http://www.writeonsports.com/articles/58/">

Do you think that ESPN has detached themselves from the avid sports fan and sold out to become mainstream or do you think that ESPN has done something positive for the sports world, by making a larger audience aware of what is going on in athletics?

Crazy Fans + Soccer = Stabbed in the leg

In chapters 15 of the McQuail book, he deals with audiences.  He says that one type of audience is defined by channel or content- that is, an audience consists of "readers, viewers, or listeners of a particular book, author, film, newspaper title or television channel and programme" (McQuail 411).  The people in this type of audience are loyal to a specific television shows, for instance.  This type of audience is very profitable for media markets because they have a devoted viewer base.

And of course with every devoted audience comes the fans.  And this is where it can get weird.

Just like audiences, fans have many different types and degrees (but Superfan is the most fun to say).  We have all heard of the "crowds of teen musics fans" who become "twisted in response to the brutal and Satanic influence of the music" (McQuail Reader 344).  So what, we can just blame Marilyn Manson for the stupid and sometimes dangerous things that kids do?  I don't think so.

Another problem is crowd violence in sports.  To us, it's great to watch on Most Amazing Videos, but to the guy that's  getting stabbed in the leg...not so much.  I found an article from Reuters about the concern of fan violence in Spain.  You can find it here: 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldFootballNews/idUKL2554330020080325

At a soccer game last week, one fan kicked and beat a fan of the other team with a stick.  Then some guy got stabbed in the leg.  And last month, one of the goalies got hit in the face with a bottle and had to get stitches.

I know that devoted fans are important in sports, but this is a little out of control.  Some researchers think that the violent occurrences at sports events are contributing to people's negative opinion about fans.  The idea of a violent mob and spectator violence can draw people away from attending sports events.  And, it adds to the feeling that fans are "irrational and out of control" (reader 345).  Since people seek support from their communities, in return members of the frenzied mobs can act out of influence from other fans.

Do you think that incidents like this can actually hurt the team (not necessarily physically)?

The article in the reader is a little far-fetched, but I think my mother would think twice before going to a soccer game where people left in ambulances every time.  Also, incidents like this can fuel the fire of the negative perception of sports fans. 

Do you see incidents like this in other venues (like concerts)?

I always hear stories of people being trampled  and injured at concerts, but since I like the band I'll still go to see them.  Do you think the threat of violence really deters true fans from attending an event? 

Gender stereotypes

Posted on behalf of Alexandra Cavuto:

There is no question that the media plays an extremely influential role in the way men and women perceive themselves today. It has become even more difficult for an individual to remain completely satisfied with a unique identity they have created for themselves with the persistence of the stereotypes being portrayed in the media. As stated in McQuail, “An acknowledgment of the historical specificity of current dominant beliefs about women and men opens up new ways of thinking about gender as constructed. In such approaches, distortion would be an empty concept, since there is no reference point as to what the true human, male or female identity consists of, and hence there is no criterion as to what exactly the media should represent.” (Reader, pg. 49).

It is easy to say that any self-respecting person will not let the media influence them in a negative way, but the media is everywhere and is very difficult to ignore. The individuals that are primarily responsible for formulating such stereotypes are celebrities, models and athletes. I feel celebrities play the most influential role in creating this stereotypical image of what a “perfect” person should look like. Female celebrities especially are constantly being praised and desired for their thin body image, tan complexion and large chests.

This article I found discusses the media and gender stereotypes and the affects it has on the average person. It touches upon the fact that only a small amount of the population has the genetic capabilities to match the attractive stereotype that the media portrays. This article uses an example from the famous Subway commercial to enhance the fact that there are standards set to be considered “attractive.” “Jared's "before" pictures show him considerably larger than his current size, but they also show him alone, with no friends or family. In stark contrast, however, his "after" action shots consistently show him not only thinner, but also constantly in the presence of a beautiful woman, presumably his significant other.” (Media & Gender Stereotyping).

The article also discusses how the images being represented by men and women in the media are linked to the marketing of “self-improvement” products and services. At some point in life, everyone has tried to make adjustments to his or her appearance; at least I know I have. This article argues that people alter their appearances in order to measure up to the marketed standard of “good-looking.” “Television, magazines, and newspapers are filled with advertisements promoting self-loathing, while offering "miracle," body-altering "cures." The body that does not conform to a sexy, sleek stereotype becomes a thing to be hated, improved upon, and generally tortured into submission.” (Media & Gender Stereotyping).

I feel that the majority of the population is affected by the way men and women are portrayed in the media and play a large role in self-esteem and emotional damage. I feel the media is focusing too much on the physical aspects of public figures as opposed to the accomplishments or uniqueness of the individual. We are losing sight of what people really are. Do you feel the media focus is too intense on the physical aspects of men and women? Do you feel things will ever change? Do you feel that if these stereotypes were not being portrayed in the media, people would still feel the need to look a certain way?

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/local/scisoc/sports03/papers/mmcconnell.html article link.

Gender in the Media- Women's Sports

It is obvious that there is a problem with the way women are represented in the media. Women are portrayed as submissive to men or if they are taking a powerful role, they are often considered a bitch. Many times the presence of women is completely ignored. Even though it seems that our society has evolved when it comes to equality between men and women, media versions of both genders are noticeably skewed. This is important for media audiences to understand because the way people are shown on television, in movies, etc, has an effect on the way people view the same people in society. McQuail said that, “The relation between gender and communication is therefore primarily a cultural one, a negotiation over meanings and values that inform whole ways of life” (Reader pg. 57).

I think it is most important to address the issue that there is a lack of female portrayal in the media. As McQuail pointed out, “It is often said that women are underrepresented in media contect when compared to the 50 percent of the population that they constitute” (Reader pg. 47-48). This is most evident when it comes to women’s sports. There is an obvious difference between the amount of coverage men’s sports teams receive as opposed to the amount of coverage women’s sports teams receive.

The article I found directly relates to this idea and it specifically discusses that while it might be wrong, the reason women’s sports are not as focused on in the media is because of money.

http://sportscurmudgeon.com/blog/2008/01/20/womens-sports-an-inconvenient-truth/

Simply stated, the media does not give women’s sports as much coverage because they think less people will want to see it, which ultimately means they will make less money. Unfortunately, as the author states, most people in our society don’t care about women’s sports, so until people start to show an interest, there will not be an equal amount of exposure.

So, do you think that it is fair women’s sports are underrepresented in the media? Do you think that this can ever be changed?

Gender & the media

Posted on behalf of Jon Sieg:

Chapter 3 in the reader begins with information regarding gender roles in the media. It talks about a certain reality, and portraying the realest versions of our male and female roles in society. The feminist point of view would most likely say that the media portrays a less than accurate view of women in society. It is argued that in reality many more women work than we see in the media. Many feminists believe our culture is lagging behind the changes in today’s society regarding the beliefs and attitudes towards women. As McQuail states, “It seems indisputable that many aspects of women’s lives and experiences are not properly reflected by the media. Many more women work than the media suggest, very few women resemble the ‘femmes fatales’ of movies and TV series, and women’s desires extend far beyond the hearth and home of traditional women’s magazines” (Reader pg 48).
Feminists claim that the media distorts that reality, but what truly defines that reality? What is the reality of the role of women? A common response to the claim of distorted reality is, as McQuail says, “…in reality, women are mothers and housewives too. What is problematic about that?” (Reader pg 48). Feminists among themselves are divided in their own views with what is the reality of women’s social position and nature (Reader pg 48). It seems highly unlikely to satisfy all needs.
Women play very important roles, in all television shows. Women play partners with men in crime and law programs, in medical shows, in comedies, in dramas…whatever it is. Some are portrayed as house wives while some are portrayed as independent, strong females in the workforce. McQuail states, “To view the role of the media in the construction of gender as a process of distorting the ‘true’ meaning of gender, as occurs in feminist transmission models of communication, thus ignores the contradictory and contested nature of gender” (Reader pg 51).

My question for you is do you believe that gender roles are inaccurately displayed in the media? Do you think it is possible to please everyone on this matter?

Today we are faced with gender issues everyday regarding the political candidates. The Democratic race, as some view it, is man vs. women. I came across an article on CNN.com responding to another article about race and gender in the democratic race. The article mentioned black women face a tough decision in this race, and within minutes, people responded quite irately. Check it out…

This is the first article
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/blackwomen.voters/index.html

And the response
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/21/emails.race.gender/index.html?iref=newssearch

What do you think about this? Was CNN wrong for posting that original article stating African American women are going to face a tougher decision?

Masculinity and Femininityin Media Studies: It's All 50 Cent's Fault

“In media studies, content analyses of the presence or absence, stereotyping, and devaluation of women are abundant in American Journals” (Steeves, 393). Generally when female and male representation in media is dissected, the trends of discussion are usually the same: awwww poor females.. have to look skinny, tan, and beautiful to be approved by the superior man, and grrrrrr tough males...have to be strong, powerful, and master of their domain. All else falls in place based on these ideologies. HOWEVER, I’d like to go back to that class discussion we had about the cultivation theory and how the media literally cultivates how we live. We are essentially talking about the same things when we talk about ideology and cultivation theory – especially in terms of masculinity and femininity in media. But I’d like to look at these areas from a positive perspective, rather than a socially condemning perspective. For example, during our cultivation theory discussion, we started talking about how the portrayals of violence, promiscuity, and tweens, etc. and how they set the example of how NOT to be. I’d like for my blog to observe the benefits of negative male and female ideology. I know it sounds confusing – bear with me.
Take Leslie Robinson’s article on Christina Aquilera’s “Dirrrty” music video. Whereas most see that video and only consider the ideology of women as sexual objects who promote promiscuity for the sake of male desires, Robinson argues the video “implies self assuredness, autonomy, and even authority.” Robinson argues that Agiulera defies the notion of the sexual subjectivity of women, and instead flexes her muscle of control and power in that female sexuality is something males cannot control. It in a sense give women a chance to say ‘haha you can’t catch me’ to their otherwise dominant males. Although the ideology is still represented in this video in a negative way, its message still gives a sense of positive empowerment to females.

For those who dosed off..here’s where you start to pay attention again. My article I found is from the last issue of Sports Illustrated Magazine. There was a 10 page spread on steroids called “Steroids in America.” I chose to talk about Part 1 of the story because it in essence blames the hip-hop industry for the rise in steroid use in our country. The author claims that ever since hip-hop came onto the scene, it projected an image of huge, strong, incredibly muscular gangsters. So apparently, according to Sports Illustrated, all of the sudden little boys and professional athletes are taking steroids because they want to be cool like 50 Cent. RIIIIIIIGHT. Everything is always 50 Cent’s fault these days.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/magazine/03/11/steroids1/index.html

First of all, it’s a shame that the finger is being pointed inaccurately at one sole source for an outrage of steroid use. Second of all, even though a certain ideology of males is represented in the hip-hop industry, it doesn’t mean every male wants to fit into it. Third of all, those males who do want to signify the muscle man tough guy ideology, don’t all necessarily do it with illegal steroid use. In fact, my argument is that if anything, the male ideology to be big and muscular to be cool has inspired more men to pump iron and jog some laps than stick an illegal needle in their asses. I think the positive aspect of this ideology is a motivation for males to get in shape and take care of their bodies. This article argues the negative aspect is the ideology portrayed is hard for the average man to achieve, and therefore promotes steroid use as an aid. What do you guys think? And more importantly, do you guys think positive aspects of ideologies that exist in our society are more powerful than the negative or vise versa? Do the positives like the message in Aquilera’s video and the motivation from the hip-hop industry get acknowledged enough? Or will the negative perspectives always prevail because they give us a place to point fingers to blame for the ills of society?