To continue my discussion of the blurring of sexual orientation in primetime television shows, I decided to flip the perspective of what I discussed in yesterday's post. Regarding actors who play characters with sexual orientations different than their own, I think that Neil Patrick Harris' character, Barney Stinson on "How I Met Your Mother," provides an excellent example of how both hetero and homosexual men and women can identify with a specific character. Despite being openly gay in his personal life, Neil Patrick Harris plays Barney, a womanizing, egotistical, and often arrogant man who represents what most young adult males would identify as the stereotypical "bro." With many of Barney's tag-lines such as "Legen- wait for it- dary," and his expressions of "awesomeness" popularized in pop culture references, Neil Patrick Harris has crossed the traditional lines separating sexual orientation to create a character that although played by an openly gay actor, can be identified as an ideal male by both genders and all orientations.

Primetime Television: Blurring Gender and Sexuality in America's Favorite Shows

Following the class discussion on gender and sexuality in media, I began thinking about how sexuality is portrayed in popular television shows. I certainly agree with the point the group raised that traditionally, television shows have viewed and portrayed homosexual characters through the lens of heterosexuality. This is evident on shows such as 90210, Gossip Girl, and as Dr. Bob mentioned, Will and Grace.

Recently, however, I have noticed a new trend in sexuality in primetime television shows. Some of the most popular shows on television have recently included characters who portray a sexuality different than their own. For instance, on both Modern Family and Glee, homosexual characters Cameron and Blaine are both played flawlessly by heterosexual males. In interviews, both actors have argued that they are comfortable enough with their sexuality that they are comfortable portraying characters with a different sexual orientation. I believe that in regard to the message this communicates to the public, these two actors demonstrate the idea that people should be comfortable with all sexual orientations, rather than assigning stigmas, or fearing negative opinions.

Media Challenge: Post #2

Having studied the presentation of specific news stories more in depth over the past few days, I have noticed another trend in selection, framing, and narrative techniques. Though media outlets and producers create stories based on biased motivations and ideals, I have noticed that the aforementioned techniques are used to encourage the public to identify with national stories. When presenting stories, news anchors and reporters often use the words "we," "our," and "us."

For example, in a report on the Fed's recent activities on CNN today, reporters urged the public to understand the Fed's actions as they effect "our" pocket books, "our" families, and "our" lives. Additionally, a follow-up story in which President Obama repudiated Donald Trump's accusations that he is not a native-born American, the President argued that "we" cannot advance if we buy into such accusations, and "we" cannot be distracted by such conspiracies. In both examples, the selection of such wording was used to foster a sense of community and shared nationality among the American people. Despite a miniscule likelihood that most Americans will meet each other, national news producers attempt to foster the idea of a close, shared community in the United States in which ideas, beliefs, experiences, and desires are shared.

Media Challenge

Last week in my political sociology class, my professor presented the class with the idea the media environment, which was originally intended to serve as a public forum for the discussion of all ideas, has been so de-politicized that it no longer serves as a "public space." Instead people are encouraged to only discuss their individual feelings in the public space, rather than discussing or arguing for specific individuals. As my professor stated, the media encourages this political apathy through selection in stories. Rather than providing information, or connecting specific stories to larger, more pervasive societal or political issues, media stories are permeated with unnecessary background information intended to distract the media consumer.

Since this discussion, I have begun intentionally examining media texts to discover how much unnecessary information is added to stories. The challenge that I now pose for myself, and anyone who wishes to accept it, is to spend the next week examining stories to see just how much irrelevant information is added. Are these stories advancing true ideas and enhancing the debate in the marketplace of ideas, or are they simply appealing to the themes that Hodkinson mentioned that ensure media consumer's interest and attention? Are media stories creating an informed, knowledgeable public, or are they distracting us from issues, de-politicizing our opinions, and increasing our focus on our self over the greater public good?

Communication in the workplace

Allison's post, Internship Hunting, got me thinking about how my generation's dependence on the internet is shaping the type of employees we are becoming. Many employers have expressed their dissatisfaction with young employees' behavior in the workplace, stating that these twenty somethings are unprofessional, and more focused on technology than they are on their jobs. Additionally, many employees are so reliant on impersonal electronic communication such as emails and text messages, that they have lost their ability to interact in person both on the phone and in the office.

I saw this first hand during my internship this summer. As interns for a U.S. Senator, myself and 17 other students were charged with answering phones, greeting office visitors, and occasionally serving as office representative at public events. I was shocked as I observed the fear that some of my fellow interns at these simple tasks. Several would clam up on the phone, stutter, stammer, or try to find ways to avoid answering.   It was obvious that they were uncomfortable with this type of interaction and would prefer to stick to tasks that involved little to no interpersonal interaction. It was interesting to observe that people from my generation lacked the basic communication skills necessary to advance themselves in the workplace. It was additionally interesting to observe that these interns were completely comfortable using email, letters, and electronic communication devises. It seemed as though the more personal interaction the task involved, the more my fellow interns were hesitant to participate. I am curious if this personal anecdote demonstrates the role of electronic communication in transforming the behaviors of of my generation. Has our dependence on instantaneous electronic communication decreased our ability to interact in person, and if so, what effect will this have on our employment prospects?

Email fail, library fail!

Last week, an interesting email mistake compromised the sanity of many neurotic Lehigh seniors, including myself. Sent to all members of the graduating class, an email from Lehigh Library Services stated that we were ineligible for graduation because of our failure to return books. In the days that followed, my conversations with my peers revealed an interesting theme. Most of my friends and classmates were extremely confused by the email, not because they had failed to return books, but because they have never taken books out of the library during their four years here.

As a history major, I've spent my fair share of time rooting through the stacks in Linderman, and departed with a bag laden with dust covered texts. My friends, however, have not had similar experiences. So I started to wonder, have my friends used the internet in place of books? Or, have professors become so immersed in the internet that their assignments eliminate the need for library books? The internet is a fantastic resource for conducting research, and has certainly helped me get out of several binds with my assignments. However, with the vast internet environment available at the click of a button, I think many students have been programmed to automatically use web-based tools, as opposed to traditional sources. This isolated example at Lehigh ties to the larger transformation of the traditional media environment into a web-based, digital environment. As my peers expressed in their personal anecdotes regarding their failure to utilize the library, why take out a book when it is available online through Google Books.

Is International news just news of Americans abroad?

Following the presentation in class on Tuesday, I was struck by the idea that in the United States, international news is often framed and presented as the stories of Americans abroad. Rather than discussing the issues facing the people of a given nation, or those directly involved in a particular event or crisis, American media producers often tell the stories of how these issues have impacted Americans.

Perhaps the most pervasive current example of this type of international news coverage was the coverage that occurred immediately after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in Japan. As the group was presenting on Tuesday, immediately my mind jumped to a particular broadcast of the TODAY show that I had watched while at home over spring break. In this particular broadcast, the first story detailed how one American woman used Twitter posts to contact NBC's Ann Curry in an attempt to find her sister, an American English teacher who was missing in Japan following the quake. Appealing to human interests, this particular story was incredibly heart warming as the broadcast showed how Curry not only located the missing woman, but established contact between she and her family. Though this story had a certain level of entertainment value associated with it, it demonstrated the positive way in which international news coverage tracked the story of an American abroad.

Despite this portrayal, this particular broadcast simultaneously showed the ways in which the most important information surrounding international news stories is often sacrificed in order to tell the stories of Americans. The story that immediately followed the one mentioned in the previous paragraph detailed a woman who had already received word that her family, who lived in Japan, were safe and entirely unharmed. Rather than reporting on issues related to Japan's response to the earthquake, the attempt to find missing victims, and planned recovery efforts, this particular news story showed an American woman sobbing in the studio while skyping with her healthy family members, who she already knew were safe. Personally, I was offended by this particular story. Although I recognize that the TODAY show is intended to be an entertainment news broadcast, I felt that it demonstrated the ways in which international coverage is distorted by American media producers, just as Tuesday's group had mentioned.

Click here to access the article about these two broadcasts, and to watch the two videos discussed. 

I'm MIA Without My BlackBerry: Expanding on Dani and Allison's Thoughts

I found it very appropriate that Allison and Dani both discussed the idea of our dependency on cell phones, as I experienced a similar situation this week. I woke up on Tuesday morning horribly ill, suffering from a thoroughly unpleasant combination of my allergies, and that flu-like cold that every Lehigh student seems to have. Knowing that I had a busy week and could not afford to miss the activities I had planned on Thursday and Friday, I knew I had to place myself in self-imposed quarantine. I attempted to spend both Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning in bed, sleeping the cold off. 

During this time, my BlackBerry was less than helpful. About every two or three minutes, my phone would go off, and even when it was on vibrate, the emails, texts, and bbm conversations were incredibly distracting. Eventually, I shut my phone off completely just so I could get some sleep. When I woke up several hours later, and turned my phone back on, it was like the apocalypse had hit. 

I had missed several important emails, had gotten so lost in a bbm conversation with members of the campus organization I am a part of that I couldn't figure out what anyone was talking about, and I spent so much time catching up with emails and phone calls that I lost track of time and missed an important meeting on Wednesday afternoon. Needless to say, my effort to get some sound sleep was nothing more than an EPIC FAIL.

I chose to discuss my BlackBerry bumble because it truly showed me how dependent I, and so many of my peers, are on our phones and the instantaneous communication features they offer. My friends assumed that I would immediately answer to their bbm conversation, and were agitated by my lack of response. Additionally, I never realized how many emails I received in any given day until I was purposely attempting to ignore them. It made me realize that if I didn't have my smart phone with me on a daily basis, I would feel this same sense of chaos every time I came home after class and opened my email inbox. Additionally, if my phone was off for any extended period of time, I would likely miss opportunities to interact with my friends and attend important events. Yes, my minor hiatus from my communications device was relaxing while it lasted, but on the whole, I would say that it is better to keep my phone on, as I am apparently missing in action without it.

Breaking the Mold?

In order to continue my previous discussion on celebrity, and the media narratives that communicate their stories, I have spent the past few days reflecting on a phrase frequently stated by celebrities. Stars are so often quoted for saying that they wish to challenge themselves to "break the mold" of traditional actors. Actors are often heralded with critical acclaim for "breaking the mold," "stepping outside the box," or delivering a "groundbreaking performance." But what does it actually mean to "break the mold?" By making this proclamation, are actors themselves acknowledging that their careers, and their personas (both on and off screen) are based upon narratives that have been previously established by society?

I sound a little Carrie Bradshaw as I pose all of these questions within my posts, but I have suddenly developed a curiosity over this "mold" idea that I can't seem to ignore. Do we really put actors in specific categories, and if so, what is it that they do to break free of these societal constructions surrounding their personalities and performances?

I would be curious to hear others' opinions on what the "mold" of celebrity is. How do we characterize celebrities beyond their roles as actors, actresses, singers, or performers? Additionally, what is it that certain celebrities do, particularly in their behaviors or performances, that make them stand out to us as someone who is different, and outside the societal norm (both in good and bad ways)?

Or, as a final musing, can a celebrity's normalcy, whether it be in their performance or everyday life, be what "breaks the mold," and makes them truly stand out in the minds and opinions of the public?

Celebrities and Citizenship

Dr. Bob's question at the end of class today regarding the public fascination with celebrities got me thinking. Is our fascination with celebrity distracting us from our roles as citizens within the media, national, and global communities?

Media blogs such as Perez Hilton, PopEater, and Just Jared, and entertainment shows such as E! News, Entertainment Tonight, Access Hollywood, and TMZ follow the lives of celebrities, giving daily reports on their latest projects, appearances, and activities. Yet, more often than not, the presentation of celebrity stories focuses on outlandish incidents, or a certain celebrity's latest blunder, rather than their most recent accomplishment. Most people are fascinated with the ridiculous actions of celebrities and closely monitor the presentation of their narratives, eagerly awaiting news on their next outburst.

Recently, public opinion has been increasingly focused on Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan, two stars who have been characterized by their detachment from reality. Some may argue that the public continues to focus on these two celebrities because we are simply waiting for their next mistake. Instead of focusing on issues important in our society or in our own lives, we are more invested in the issues celebrities are facing. I, however, wonder if our fascination is not a representation of a deeper, responsible citizenship.

Perhaps we watch celebrities, contribute to gossip blogs, and read celebrity magazines and stories, not because we wish to be preoccupied with their stories, but rather to provide a social criticism of their actions. We criticize Charlie Sheen not just because we can, but because his behaviors do not fit into the traditional narrative role of a responsible citizen. Following this understanding, the fascination with celebrity is not a distraction from our role as citizens, but a way to express our duties to create a rational, well-informed society in which people follow traditional, established, and accepted roles.

It's All In The Presentation

Whether it was addressed in our class conversations or assignments, or in the greater context of national and international news broadcasts, the topic of framing has developed negative connotations in the field and scholarly work of communications. Yet despite some obvious examples of the manipulation of framing techniques, I have tried to stay optimistic about the selection techniques of modern media outlets and producers. Though framing is used to communicate purposefully crafted, biased messages, I have always thought that there was merit to the process that has become vital to the modern communications environment. I tried to stay positive, but my efforts were met with a perpetual, seemingly endless stream of examples in which framing was used to advance the interests of a particular group, or to allow media producers to assert power, control, and influence over the ideas, beliefs, and actions of the audience. The shift in my opinion toward the dark side seemed inevitable. That was until this morning...

Today, myself and about twenty five fellows and faculty members of the Lehigh University TRAC Writing Program had the privilege of traveling to the United Nations where we met with the Communications Adviser for the Office of the Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund. With twenty one years of communications experience at the United Nations, as well as previous careers in television and radio broadcast, this particular adviser is well versed in the role of framing in the global media environment. So, as our discussion turned toward the role of communications in advancing the goals of specific organizations, the topic of conversation naturally shifted to framing. I expected to hear what I have heard so many times before... that framing is distorting truth, or creating a misinformed global audience. Instead, what I heard was not only surprising, it was practical, positive, and encouraging.

As this particular communications adviser stated, the United Nations seeks to advance the interests of members nations and the global community. Yet when addressing issues in specific communities, the United Nations, or any other organization, cannot simply declare that specific practices of the country or community are outdated, unpopular, or improper. Instead, the people of the community must be presented with information that will allow them to understand why their practices are considered dangerous or unfavorable, and must be educated in ways to implement change. In this sense, the most effective communication occurs at the community level. This is where framing comes in. In order to make community members understand the views and opinions of outsiders, external forces, international organizations, information must be framed and presented in that are diplomatic, yet informative and relatable. Once information has been framed in ways that will be received by the people in question, the community can not only obtain relevant facts and details, but additionally understand the need for change, institute necessary steps, and finally practice and promote sustainable change at their own local level. All of this is achieved through the process of framing.

In class on Tuesday we discussed and alluded to the idea that producers or framers of information were acting out of their own interests. This emphasized the negative associations of framing that I previously mentioned. Today, however, I encountered an example that proved to be quite the opposite. The United Nations is an organization that seeks to advance the interests of the global community, and improve the conditions, status, and agency of people within it's represented regions. As a media producer, the UN uses framing to help advance the interests of the less empowered members of the global community. Yes, it is arguable that the United Nations uses framing techniques to influence the ideas of another group of people, however, when examined through a less critical lens, this particular case of modern framing demonstrates the ways in which the selective methods of communication can promote positive understanding, community engagement, and effective cultural change.

Created Celebrities: Love Them, Hate Them, Listen To Their Overly Auto-Tuned YouTube Songs...

On her blog site, classmate Allison Goldberg discussed the sudden popularity of young singer Rebecca Black (read Allison's original post here). This got me thinking about our previous discussion of created celebrities, and the ways in which celebrities fit into two social narratives: those who have achieved fame, and those who have been ascribed to it. As Allison discussed, Black has been criticized since the release of her song "Friday." Though I admit that I have watched her video, and concluded that her music is not, by any stretch of the imagination, something I would choose to listen to regularly, I certainly think that there are equally terrible songs and artists out there who haven't received as much negativity as this poor girl.

Perhaps the reason for the public backlash against Rebecca Black is because the creation of her celebrity didn't fit into the achievement narrative that we traditionally associate with celebrities. Black seemingly came out of nowhere and suddenly had one of the most viewed videos on YouTube. Although her song is attention getting, she cannot be classified as having achieved celebrity through her vocal talents, as her overly Auto-Tuned voice, and lackluster lyrics exclude her from fitting this narrative.

The backlash against the young "artist" (I use this term very loosely for the sake of this post), may be because Black is an ascribed celebrity who rose from the model of capitalism and gained popularity through modern electronic communications and viral videos. With Black's image created through her family's access to wealth, media consumers may be hesitant to accept her celebrity and status. Rather than becoming traditional fans, consumers have instead created smear and hate campaigns against the singer, thereby allowing them to use Black's image for their own negative gratification purposes. In this case, some consumers have gone so far as to create new narratives to read and understand the media texts devoted to Black, which include attributing Black's video to new movements of cultural satire.

Personally, I don't think Rebecca Black is particularly talented, nor do I find her music enjoyable, but I can also completely ignore her music, as well as her created celebrity, should I choose to do so. She does not fit into my interpretation of the achievement narrative, but I certainly understand how she has been ascribed celebrity status. She has received what Andy Warhol termed her fifteen minutes of fame, and she may receive some sort of compensation for her sudden celebrity, but as her celebrity image fades, as do most "one-hit-wonders," so too will the backlash against her. Either that, or media consumers will quickly forget about her to focus on another, less talented, more ridiculous celebrity.

Infotainment: Are we responsible for selection?

Prior to our class discussion on infotainment news casts, I was already familiar with the idea that in the hyper-competitive media environment, news and information stories are increasingly presented as entertainment pieces. Rather than delivering hard-hitting, factual news stories, media outlets select specific aspects from available information to create stories that appeal to human interests. Many argue that this shift in media production and delivery is distorting the truth of stories, and creating an increasingly misinformed audience. Yet, as people continue to abandon television broadcasts, newspapers, and traditional news sources for online sites and publications, I wonder, are we responsible for the selection of the information we seek?

With limited amounts of free time, are people genuinely interested in all news stories, or do we purposely seek only those stories that have direct appeals to our interests? Do people utilize RSS feeds to select the information most relevant to their lives, or are such devises, including smart phone and e-reader applications, simply tools used to ignore the stories that we simply do not want to hear? It is arguable that in the pervasive media environment of today, people are so saturated with information that they must use their own selection efforts to identify and obtain the information that is most relevant to their lives. However, in my more critical opinion, selection can be used by individuals to simply ignore the negative events in the world and focus solely on stories that fit our own expectations, interests, and desires.

So, is infotainment a product of media producers or media consumers? Perhaps it is both. Maybe media producers must select specific images, frame certain information, and present limited and carefully arranged stories to attract viewers, who would otherwise simply ignore traditional outlets for modern media sites tailored to the specific interests of the audience. Perhaps as the audience transforms from media consumers to media producers, we have accelerated the shift toward infotainment through our own acts of purposeful selection.