Culture Jamming
Christine Harold’s essay “Pranking Rhetoric: ‘Culture Jamming’ as Media Activism” presents us with an alternative form of resistance. As Harold pointed out in the essay, “the promising forms of media activism may resist less through negation and opposition than by playfully appropriating commercial rhetoric both by folding it over on itself and exaggerating its tropes” (189).
By comparing ad parodies and media pranks, Harold was able to point out the pros and cons of both forms of media activism. Here are the three main points that I think we should consider when comparing ad parodies and pranks:
1. Their aims
“Whereas parodists attempt to change things in the name of a presupposed value, comedians diagnose a specific situation, and try something to see what responses they can provoke” (Harold 194).
2. Their methods
“Mass media pranks and hoaxes discussed here do not oppose traditional notions of rhetoric, but they repattern them in interesting ways” (207).
3. Their supposed outcomes
“Culture jamming multiplies the tools for contemporary media and consumer activists” (208).
My questions on this topic:
1. If you were to “pie” someone, who would it be and why? (Pretend you are a Biotic Baking Brigade member.)
2. Do you think media pranks, as a political action, “intensifies” thought? Or does it fall into the danger of being just another spectacle?
Reference:
Harold, Christine. “Pranking Rhetoric: ‘Culture Jamming’ as Media Activism.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 21, no.3 (2004): 189-211. (Unit reader)
Hello guys,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I posted this just now. I honestly forgot.
Guia
From those pictures we were looking at in the tutorial, my reaction wasnt one in which I would stop using a product or question my beliefs on the advertised product/service. They just made me laugh. But I think it all depends on what the media prank is targeting. The Nike example we discussed 'slave labour' media prank is a much more important issue than say the Tommy Hilfiger or Absolute media prank. There is a serious political/economic issue being presented here, not just a mere opinion about how common Tommy clothes are. Using the Mcdonalds example, the 'heart attack' media prank, really its up to the consumer. We all know that Mcdonalds burgers arent healthy but if the advertising is done well then consumers will buy the burger even though its unhealthy. I think when companies start lying or cheating their way to the top is where the issue is. If Mcdonalds starting saying that burgers are 95% fat free, then I think we would have a more serious problem, one much like the Nike sweat shops.
ReplyDeleteI think it depends on the media prank as the whether it will intensify someones beliefs or attitudes towards a product. I think the Nike slave labour media prank would definitely make me question whether I should buy Nike again, but if I find a Tommy Hilfiger top that I like, the sheep media prank probably wouldnt stop me from buying it.
The ad parodies presented during the tute indeed forces consumers to face the awful truth about these famous brands (Nike sweat shops, McDonald's unhealthy food, etc.). However since it doesn't directly affect them (at least, not yet, in the case of MDonald's), consumers can choose to ignore it. Many consumers may laugh at these parodies. They may agree with the message/opinion of the media activists but they don't necessarily change their behaviour. Thus, ad parodies can be considered ineffective.
ReplyDeleteAlso, advertisers/government (the "Man")can use similar tactics in the "marketing" of their products/policies.