Who Are You Voting For?

I recently saw this picture on the side of an internet page I was visiting:

Regardless of my own political opinions, I found this particular ad campaign intriguing. 

We've recently discussed in class how politicians (or anyone in the public eye) strategically construct a public image of themselves. Target audiences is a subject we've also discussed, and how companies will construct their image to appeal to a certain demographic.

Courtesy of the Obama Campaign

This image is promoting Barack Obama's run for presidency but the first real words are "Join Michelle". First off, the use of the presidential couple's first names gives off a certain casual air - as if you're talking about your joining your neighbors for some random event. This technique makes the presidential couple seem much more relatable and accessible. 

By telling the public to "Join Michelle", it is implied that she somehow has some influence in the political sphere. Interestingly, Barak, the one person who actually can change things, isn't even pictured. However, Michelle has no official power over the policies of our nation although she has been active with campaigns for social change like her "Let's Move" campaign against childhood obesity in addition to keeping up public appearances. It is important to remember, though, that voting for Obama does nothing more for Michelle's power except to keep her living in the White House. 

It is clear that this ad targets the female demographic of the Obama vote. He has done an amazing job characterizing himself as the family man by keeping his wife and children by his side throughout the campaign trail and his presidency. This ad further emphasizes that Obama can appeal to the female demographic because he has such a strong woman by his side. 

What other messages do you pick up from the picture?

Funding for the Performing Arts

For my junior theme topic, I'm thinking about researching why public schools cut funding for performing arts and the effect that that has on environment of the school and students. I recently read an article from Crain's New York Business that talked about New York City public schools that had to cut funding in 2010.

The Department of Education cut per pupil arts funding in 2007, according to the article, which was before the huge economic downturn that led to even less funding. With pressure for schools to excel on state math and reading tests, art programs were pushed aside. 

However, New York City Council Member Robert Jackson, chair of the education committee, said, "the real irony is that students with access to arts education have been shown to produce superior academic achievement on standardized test, the very goal that is being pursued". 

With so many reasons why there should be art programs in schools, it completely amazes me that schools continue to push these programs aside or isolate them from the core curriculum. Just like sports are a place for athletic students, and the math and science club is there for the academic kids, the arts are a home to those who participate in them. 

As I continue to do research on this topic, I wonder what other alternative programs that are important to the student population that might be cut back due to funding?

The 99 Cent Trick

The most recent JCPenny commercials featuring Ellen joke about how retailers commonly price things at $14.99 instead of just $15. But it got me thinking - does one cent less really make a difference to the consumer?

According to a BBC News article, "Why is a 99p tag so attractive?", there is such thing as the "99 effect", researched by Robert Schindler. He theorizes that "people overweigh the left hand number. When a price changes from a $30 to a $29.99, the change from three to two makes more of a difference than the value of that money". He likens this difference to when a 39-year-old turns 40 and the birthday feels like a tremendous leap. 

This practice originated, according to Schindler, from the same practice of department stores in the late 1880s to communicate discount or the impression that things are on sale - even when they are not. 

Nick Gladding, another contributor to the article, is skeptical that consumers are fooled the the "99 effect". However, as an avid shopper myself who knows basic math, I think there is some truth to it. Everyone wants a bargain, and if the price tag looks cheaper, then it makes sense that we associate the product with being a bargain. 

I wonder how easy it is to be a smart consumer, with retailers pulling out all the stops to lure in costumers?

Flattening of Experiences

In class, we're reading White Noise by Don DeLillo which is a novel that follows themes such as consumerism and media obsession and dependency.

Courtesy of TinyFarmBlog

One particular quote that stuck out to me was in Jack's description of the supermarket, a reoccurring location. As he's observing everything around him, the exotic fruits and P.A. announcements, he says, "Everything seemed to be in season, sprayed, burnished, right" (36).

What this speaks to is the flattening of experiences. This can apply on a global level, but I'll be focusing on the U.S. It's the idea that, no matter where you go, you will find the same products (Goldfish, Oreos, etc.) and fresh produce is sold no matter what time of year. You can buy raspberries in the dead of winter.

Because of this phenomenon, things that made certain areas of the U.S. unique - like the grapes in California or the citrus in Florida, are no longer unique to that area. Everyone can get oranges all the time and we're all eating grapes no matter if they're native to our area or not.

When something is no longer in season, the U.S. has another country growing that crop and shipping it over to us. Growing consumer demands for certain products has led the U.S. to rely on other countries for the their produce but, in the process, I see our country losing some of the characteristics that make it unique.

If we look at a map of the U.S., the wide array of different landscapes divides the country into quite dissimilar pockets of American culture. Living in Denver used to be wildly different than living in Boston, for example, because what products were available, among other things. The landscape differences have stayed the same but consumer habits have flatlined all over the country, leaving us with one "American" experience wherever you travel to.

Does this enhance our identity as Americans, living in a "melting pot", or does it erase that image?

When College Isn't an Option

On the North Shore of Chicago, it's common knowledge that you'll be going to college. We live in an area of highly concentrated wealth and a heavily-funded school district that provides us with a quality high school education...so why wouldn't you go to college?

This past weekend, my dad's best friend from high school visited us. His two children attended community college for two years in a small town in Kansas called Ark City so that he could barely scrape enough money together to send them to two years at Oklahoma State University to finish off their education. His son is in the Navy reserves and receives a stipend that also helps pay some bills.

I live comfortably knowing that my family will never have to make the same sacrifices so that each of my five siblings can attend a four-year college.

My dad and his friend came from the same town. And yet, their children are leading polar opposite lives.

According to Economic Policy Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank that conducts research and analysis on the economic status of working America, a low income can keep even the highest achieving students from attending college.

A longitudinal study (conducted over a period of 12 years) followed a group of students from their 8th grade years, charting their performance based on math scores from standardized tests and, of that group, who attained a college degree.

The article featuring the study said that, based on the figure, there are "great disparities in college completion based on socioeconomic status". I don't know if such a broad, sweeping claim can be made just on the figure alone - but it is clear that there is a correlation between college completion and socioeconomic status. This is evident even in our own neighborhood.

I don't have the answer, but I wonder: what can be done to help even the most low-income families receive a strong education?

TV Tokenism: Body of Proof

*

The series stars Dana Delany as Dr. Megan Hunt (the woman in the center), a medical examiner. The show focuses on Hunt's efforts to balance the demands of her professional life (working as a medical examiner) with her personal life (reconnecting with her estranged daughter). Hunt was a top-flight neurosurgeon until she was in a car crash that later led to ruined her career. This resulted in her resignation, and retirement from the profession altogether.

It premiered in September of 2011 and has gotten good reviews. The target demographic

seems women 30-50 (according to the ages of the people commenting on the show's forum).

We see tokenism coming into play with the two black characters who play generally one- or two-dimensional characters. Dr. Brumfeld accounts for the "authority minority" over Hunt, following the 'rule book'. However, he is constantly being sassed by her and undermined as she takes her own initiatives. He is deferred to subplots and witty comments. Detective Baker portrays another token character, the respectable assistant or 'side kick', facing a moral dilemma between which authority (Hunt or Morris) she prefers to work under. She is also delegated to subplots.

Hunt, on the other hand, along with Dunlop and Morris, are morally complex characters that get hefty screen time in comparison to their minority counterparts

Characters:

• Peter Dunlop is the man to Hunt's right, a former police officer and now medico-legal investigator because of a gunshot wound. As partner and confidant to Dr. Megan Hunt, Peter now finds himself investigating Philadelphia's mysterious medical cases.

• Dr. Kate Murphy is the woman to Hunt's left. She is the imperious Chief Medical Examiner and Megan's superior. She is the first female Chief M.E. in Philadelphia's history.

• Detective Bud Morris is the man on the far right and is a homicide detective. A hardheaded, straight-shooting veteran of the Philadelphia Homicide Division, he fights for justice on the streets of Philly while fighting a personal battle at home, mending a crumbling relationship with his wife who just kicked him out of their Center City brownstone. He often clashes with Megan at crime scenes over their different views.

• Dr. Curtis Brumfeld, the first man to Hunt's left, is the administrative glue that holds the Philadelphia Medical Examiner's Office together. As the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner he is technically Megan's boss but realizes no one is Megan's boss. Still Curtis is a capable and intelligent Medical Examiner whose bluster belies his love for his job. When Curtis isn't busy trying to rein in Megan, you can find him down in the dirt examining his life's obsession: Bugs

• Detective Samantha Baker, the woman to Hunt's right, is Bud's partner but while Bud finds Dr. Megan Hunt's methods irritating, Sam identifies with Megan's hands-on, take-no-prisoners approach. Sam must balance her allegiance to her partner Bud with her growing respect for Megan and the unconventional work of the M.E.O.

*This is an assignment by my American Studies class to analyze a TV network drama and the role of "TV Tokenism" (under a specific definition by our teacher) in the show. 

Reverse Tokenism

I'm a big Tyler Perry fan, despite not fitting into his typical demographic. Nonetheless, I love both this comedic and dramatic movies. I recently went to his newest movie, "Good Deeds", a drama about a highly successful black CEO, Wesley Deeds, who finds himself living the dreams of his family rather than his own. He gets wrapped into the saga of a single mom who recently got evicted for failing to pay rent and restores both her life and his own in the process.

In class, we recently discussed "TV Tokenism", which is defined as (within the context of a network prime-time drama) when the main character is white or white-looking, the center of the story line, morally complex, and receives most of the screen time. The supporting role is a "token" minority, maybe in a prestigious and/or "buddy" position, rarely complicated and with little screen time.

With that definition in mind, I found it hilarious that in a movie dominated by black characters, there were two white friends of Mr. Deed's fiancé and one white executive character that worked alongside Mr. Deeds.

We talk about how networks feel the need to have token black characters to satisfy the "diversity quota" but if the ratio of whites to blacks is so easily flip flopped with films like those of Tyler Perry, who's to say what really constitutes diversity? Can it be measured and calculated to appeal to all types of audiences or should some types of entertainment stay within a certain demographic?