This is what all Media Studies majors want to grow up to do: write academic books/essays on their favorite cult movies.
2 years agoThe Huffington Post brings us the best/worst (depending on your perspective) media corrections from 2009!
2 years ago
I actually wrote a whole paper in college about how Cosmopolitan positions itself as a bible of femininity, so this is especially funny to me.
2 years agoThe Bible as popular magazine covers.
I used to work there, and remember the proud presentation of this advertising campaign to the rest of the agency. I was stifling my laughter then, but I’m sure as hell laughing out loud now!
2 years agoMcGarry Bowen tried to come back from being made fun of for their hilariously embarrassing Miracle Whip campaign with an open letter to Stephen Colbert. Sorry guys, but you’re still the laughing stock of your peers, and most likely the 18-35 demo. Let’s just hope the morbidly obese midwesterners that actually eat this crap aren’t turned off by your 1990’s Mountain Dew version of a rooftop party.
For the record, Miracle Whip is just mayo with high fructose corn syrup. All the nasty, but now with diabetes.
See the original ad:
http://peachfuzz.tumblr.com/post/161607303
See Colbert’s version:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/252726/october-15-2009/the-mayo-lution-will-not-be-televised
Text of the letter:
Dear Mr. Colbert,
Recently on your show, you tapped into a sore spot in our nation’s psyche: the eternal struggle between mayonnaise and Miracle Whip. And surprisingly, for a man of your impeccable intellect, you’ve chosen the wrong side. A side doomed to a painful, drawn-out, utter and complete defeat. Like the Plantagenets in the Hundred Years’ War. Or whichever on was the cat in “Tom and Jerry.”
Mr. Colbert, we found your attacks a little harsh, occasionally funny, and at times, wholly inaccurate (for the record, our target is 18-35, not 34). But unlike most advertisers who are so mayo, who would back down at the slightest whiff of controversy, and pull their advertising from not just your show but from your entire network and all its sister entities – we intend to do the opposite.
On Thursday, November 12, we will dominate the airspace on your show. With every commercial break, your viewers will be exposed to hardcore Miracle Whip attitude and revelry. You will see our legion of (as you call them) “mayonay-sayers” snarfing sandwiches topped with our one-of-a-kind flavor in a very cool and totally hip way. They will be in your face and massively dope. It goes without saying, they WILL NOT TONE IT DOWN. And you will begin to see the soft, bland white walls of the mayo empire begin to collapse under the weight of its own whipped-egg pretentiousness.
Think about it, Mr. Colbert. In a sense, we will own you.
We’re on a mission. We’re taking no prisoners.
We’re raising Hell, man.
THE BOLD MARKETING TEAM AT MIRACLE WHIP
(via 24isthenew25)
I work for the Big Apple Circus, so I’m proud to share that we got onto NY Mag’s Approval Matrix. Our juggler, Picaso Jr.’s act of juggling ping pong balls with his mouth landed the Big Apple Circus at the intersection of Lowbrow & Brilliant (but closer to briliant). And, because this is a media blog, I will note that this was genuine editorial and was not part of any advertising campaign or marketing deal. Go Big Apple Circus!
2 years agoWow, even Sesame Street is getting in on the battle with Fox News. Nowhere is safe for you Fox News, not even good ol’ Sesame Street!
2 years agoJon Stewart thwarts Fox News with its own statements. This is brilliant, absolutely brilliant.
2 years agoHere’s a link to a video of Valerie Jarrett stating the White Houses stance against bias in the news media. I’m the first to agree that Fox News is biased. However, they’re extreme enough that I would say it’s a pretty obvious call. However, waging war on bias in the entire landscape of new media is a very tricky thing. How do we really define bias and objectivity? And who gets to decide which definition will be used? Though it was very satisfying to see the White House actually fighting back against Fox News, I’m starting think they’ve gotten themselves into a more complicated war than they anticipated (not that this is something that America has never encountered…). Fighting for objectivity means both defining it and regulating it, and the regulating part makes me nervous.
We have free speech and free press, and both are a celebrated rights our country that should not be taken for granted. I think that news organizations should not be able to disseminate hateful or slanderous statements, and that they should live up to their slogans (I sometime wonder if Fox News meant “fair & balanced” to be ironic…). Honestly, at this point I think news should just admit bias instead of trying to feign objectivity. As human beings, our perspective has a pesky habit of seeping into the way we see things and report them. Rather than expecting news to be above the limits of humanity, it should strive for fairness but admit when objectivity is not possible.
2 years agoThis article from Politico discusses how politicians (from both sides) have been utilizing social media and new technologies to inject some celebrity into their careers. I find this ok when the goal is a greater sense of connectivity with constituents or a dialogue about important issues, but disturbing when politicians are just looking for the spotlight. Politics is already enough of a popularity contest, which I think doesn’t need to be fueled by new media. But in our media-saturated culture, the potential spotlight just gets bigger and bigger. What’s a politician to do?
I’m sure that many politicians these days are following Obama’s lead when it comes to the media, but there are good and bad ways to make use of sites like YouTube and Twitter. Media can, and should, be a platform for issues, not a strategy for achieving celebrity status. Visibility can be very powerful, but you want to be visible for the right reasons. I think that Obama’s use of YouTube and the internet as a point of connectivity has been very effective, but it irks me to see the extensive tabloid gossip devoted to the entire presidential family. But that’s one of the eternal problems with the media: it’s usually not completely under your control. I think that politicians of all ranks will increasingly utilize social media, but whether not it’s an appropriate platform for politics remains to be seen.
I guess it was inevitable that this media-savvy administration would have a media-based feud. However, the current tension between the Obama Administration and Fox News is a complicated and fraught feud to have. It’s completely understandable to want to take action against a person or organization that is as vocally opposed to you as Fox News is to Obama, but fighting back opens up a real can of mediated worms.
First of all, there’s the possibility that fighting the hyperbolic statements of Fox News will just end up validating them. There are a lot of nasty things being said about Obama and his administration, but choosing not to respond to them is the way to be the bigger and more reasonable person. In taking action against those who make wild accusations, you’re showing that they’re valid enough to fight for, as well as stooping down to the accuser’s level.
What complicates this further is that the president is taking on an entire media outlet. The whole purpose of freedom of speech is to create a space where opposition can be voiced, even if those in power don’t find it favorable. Once a media outlet is singled out for its opposing views, we’re getting into a bad area (never mind that the channel is supposed to be “fair and balanced”). The White House is legitimizing its feud by saying that Fox News is an extension of the Republican Party, and thus not a legitimate news organization. While I would not say that Fox News is politically neutral or objective, I wouldn’t actually consider them an extension of the Republican Party. I think it’s dangerous for the Obama Administration to make such claims and assess Fox News’ validity as a media outlet based on their opposition.
However, I also don’t think Fox News should be able to get away with the things they have said about the Obama Administration. Clearly hyperbolic labels like racist don’t come from reporting, but from opinion and editorial. I think comments like Glenn Beck’s should be considered slander. These comments don’t come from a tabloid, but from a news organization. Without solid proof of such claims, a news organization should not be disseminating them. I do think that Fox News should be held accountable for conflating opinion and reporting, and should face consequences for libel. Free speech does not mean freedom to publicly defame someone without anything to back up your claims.
Clearly this is a tricky situation. Overall I think it would be better if the Obama Administration addressed specific statements of Fox News and provided logical reasoning why these claims cross a line. Starting a feud with an entire news organization risks undermining the legitimate opposition that is overshadowed by he hyperbolic. It will be interesting to watch this tension about the media unfold within it.
2 years agoThis is a great way to use media to further the cause of health care reform. Make your Facebook & Twitter pages into symbols for health care reform and send a message to congress, all on this website. Make your mark on the digital landscape!
2 years agoThis is an article from the NYT on studying/multi-tasking in this technologically saturated era. It cites a divide between the “digital immigrants” (older people) and the “digital natives” (younger people). Even though I’m in the group of younger people who are supposed to be skilled at (and even need) multi-tasking, I totally don’t relate. The best I can do is do something mindless on the computer while watching TV. If I’m studying, writing a paper, or at work, I can’t have music or television playing. I’m not sure what makes me different from all of my fellow “digital natives”, but I’m still a one-at-a-time kind of gal. I feel so old…
2 years agoThis article claims that though conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck make th most noise, they don’t really have the most influence. David Brooks maintains that in the past these blow-hards have not actually been able to sway voters, making their illusion of power a “media mythology”.
I’m not quite sure what to believe. The media spotlight is definitely a strong platform (Obama certainly thinks so), but it doesn’t necessarily translate to action and voting power. We may never know exactly how much influence a prevalent media presence has on people’s opinions and actions, but I feel safer not underestimating it. Given the saturating media attention of conservative angst and the intensity of the coverage, I sure hope that David Brooks is right.
2 years agoAn interesting parallel between rap & Republican radio. I just hope Rush Limbaugh doesn’t get an ideas and start trying to rap the garbage that spills out of his mouth.
2 years ago
