December 13, 2007

War Images

During class, we discussed 9/11 images and how sensitive the media has been when publishing pictures of the traumatic event. We also discussed how as Americans, we have a right to know what is going on in this country and we should not be shaded or guarded from any information that affects our lives. However, clearly, when showing images of death, the media must first be concerned with the family and/or friends of the body being shown. Most close-up images of dead bodies are not blasted across newspapers or television screens. However, do you agree that when it comes to war, we should be shown images that may be hard to swallow? Perhaps we do not need a dead body thrown in our faces, but footage of the war and shootings and bombings and death occuring from afar should be shown to our public. Americans are terrific at pretending things do not happen. We are infamous for "remembering to forget". Has the war we are currently in become another instance of the Holocaust where once its OVER we will be told what happened and then act out in shock and disbelief that we had no clue what really took place? I think our nation needs to demand to be told details of what is occurring over seas where our men and women are giving their lives for us as we sit in our daily routines sometimes without a thought throughou the day to them. America needs to stop ignoring the facts and start demanding access to them. I dont believe that images and footage should just be thrown into our laps but I do think that a well-planned Communication process should be taken place during this war that keeps America in-the-know about the good and bad of this war. And if what we are experiencing IS the Communications plan, then we need a better one.

Panopticon vs. What Not to Wear

Jaya- I was particularly interested in your presentation when you began to speak about the panopticon. I have never actually seen an episode of What Not to Wear, but I think you described it well enough for me to get a sense of its tone. Are you trying to say that our society as a whole has become its own panopticon? Class, do you think that panopticon can actually relate to anywhere you feel entrapped and scrutinized? Maybe we have created our own panopticon by constantly policing ourselves on what we say and wear, how we carry ourselves, and how we measure our status. I guess I can see the American society as its own panopticon because we have created it amongst ourselves. Certain things are accepted and certain things are not accepted. Granted, we may not necessarily be thrown in jail for crossing the "fashion police" but society still finds a way to punish those who go against the norm. The threat of surveliance certainly is a factor in our everyday lives and not only influences our behavior when it comes to the judiciary system, but also the laws of our culture and what is and what is not accepted and awarded as the "correct" way to talk, walk, and dress.

December 12, 2007

Kevin Carter Picture

In the Cohen article on page 195 he mentions a picture by the photographer Kevin Carter. I didn't recall actually ever seeing this picture so I decided to Google it. Not to my surprise, the picture is definitely disturbing and certainly offsets the urge to do something to help this child. This photo went onto to win a Pulitzer Prize and was hailed because of its ability to stir emotion to help the little girl. I was wondering what everyone thought about this picture vs the ones that Medea posted earlier. Is it the vulture or the position of this child? Or maybe it is just that face that it is a child and the realization of her death is inevitable? What makes this different than the rest?

December 11, 2007

Which regime is this?

After reading for last week and noting all the different ways images of atrocities are used and talked about, I thought back to our reading of Latour and the two different regimes of representation he mentions. I was wondering which, if either, regime of representation images of atrocities would fit within. Are these images characteristics of the first regime, where "every displacement has to be paid for by a re-formulation" (p. 25)? Or, rather, are they characteristic of the second, scientific regime, where "Each displacement is going to be paid for not by a reformulation but by the reinscription of the same shape on a different medium" (p. 25)?
Perhaps it is images like these that take elements of both regimes and mesh them together, or perhaps it is simply a new, third regime (perhaps the capitalist regime) where images are made simply for the sake of being viewed, rather than to invoke religious feeling in the viewer or to maintain a grasp on "what is really there."

December 10, 2007

Magazine ads..are they offensive?!

As you know, I am writing my paper on women's image in advertising and how it can devalue women and their body image, especially the ads in Shape magazine. This was one of the ads that I found interesting because it is the Deal or No Deal models, in conjunction with the Ford Motor company. This ad could be seen as offensive to a breast cancer survivor, or patient, since the girls are all wearing tight fitting shirts, are all young, etc. I just wanted to give you guys some food for thought, and raise your awareness to such things, (especially when looking at Shape) since we have limited time on wed. and how Spitzack would view this and how these models are unrealistic .....I also attached the press release on what was put out by Ford. I was going to email the two female board members at Ford, since both were involved with hospitals, and one worked for the American Cancer Society..just to see what they thought! if they were even aware that the ad couls be offensive..or you guys think the ad is offensive?


DEARBORN, Mich., October 4, 2007 – Ford’s Warriors in Pink, Howie Mandel and the models of NBC’s highly popular "Deal or No Deal" are working together to say "NO DEAL" to breast cancer. A special episode of "Deal or No Deal," will air October 19 at 8 p.m. ET /7 p.m. CT to raise breast cancer awareness, the first step in early detection, and support Ford’s long standing relationship with Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Dressed in pink, the "Deal or No Deal" models and Mandel will direct viewers to to find out more about Ford’s efforts and how everyone can get involved to help in the fight against breast cancer.

Wearing Warriors in Pink t-shirts and scarves, eleven of the “Deal or No Deal” models also posed for a print campaign, which will be featured in publications such as InStyle, US Weekly, TV Guide and Women’s Health, starting October 8. The Warriors in Pink apparel the models are wearing is available on and 100 percent of the net proceeds will be donated to Komen for the Cure.

Fans who tune into "Deal or No Deal" will also see a special message featuring the Deal or No Deal models encouraging involvement and instilling passion against the disease. During the special episode, three lucky viewers will get the opportunity to win through a special Play At Home Lucky Case Game, a highly coveted 2008 Mustang with Warriors in Pink package, a limited-edition first-ever Ford vehicle designed exclusively in support of Komen for the Cure. Each sale of the in-demand vehicle provides a donation to Komen for the Cure.

In addition, contestant Ashlee Mundy, a breast cancer survivor, is joined by Sharon Osborne in-studio and receives a special message from Elizabeth Edwards and Alec Baldwin via satellite. Elizabeth Edwards has battled breast cancer and Alec Baldwin's mother has a foundation in her name, the Carol M. Baldwin Breast Cancer Research Fund out of Stony Brook, New York.