Ok I know we're basically done with the semester and the blogs but I just wanted to share this article because it's currently featured on the very front center of CNN's homepage...I think it really speaks to America's obsession with celebrities... -__-;;

Because Chris Brown's Twitter is REALLY the Breaking News of the Century...?

DTC Ads

I'm always amazed by the amount of DTC advertisements made by pharmaceutical companies on television, and I am even more caught off guard when it is for medications that treat erectile disfunction such as Viagra. It really says something about the things we allow to be broadcast with regard to censorship. The male anatomy is a very taboo topic on television compared to our comfort level with the female body, so I'm always a little surprised that nobody flinches when a commercial comes on TV warning men to seek medical attention if he experiences an erection lasting more than four hours. ED medication is the first thing that comes to mind when talking about DTC ads because I think they are the most prolific, and it is interesting to observe their success. As we discussed in class, the DTC ads usually include a checkbox of symptoms, and by the end of the commercial, the men watching are convinced they are impotent. Granted, I'm sure this drug does wonders for people whose sex lives are on the way out due to ED, but it becomes dangerous when men are using it illegally for recreational purposes.

Using a drug for anything other than its intended purpose is always risky, but the nitrates in Viagra can cause an extremely unsafe drop in blood pressure that can be fatal to someone with a healthy blood pressure. The main cause of impotence in men is high blood pressure, which prevents the blood from flowing to the right places, so the drug aims to lower blood pressure temporarily, so when someone with normal blood pressure uses Viagra, the blood pressure can plummet. The advertisements should focus more on this aspect of the drug that they know exists, but instead they focus of marketing with the idea that the consumer can do it "whenever the time is right".

Technology Incorporated in Media

Different modes of technology influence us everyday. Through new technological developments we are affected by the media. In our world today we are constantly updated with news, ads and events through our cellphones or by some sort of device we use everyday.
It seems like most people either have a IPhone or Blackberry two leading cellphone brands and everyday the people with these devices are updated with news from all around the world.
Media Plays such an important role in influencing what is important in our society. If it wasn't for these new devices that allow us to be informed about what is going on in the world we would not be so much emphasis on news, movies, and tv shows.
The news is framed into a particular way to show more emphasis on certain events which make us believe, that is more important. These frame's may happen because of top executives who cannot report real facts because of their investors who allow their programs to run. If it isn't for advertisers, networks would not be able to air their shows to the public without charging them.
Also, Movie and TV show critics, report more on certain shows to spark the popularity of the show. Through this tactic more people watch these shows because they may seem more popular or appealing. Media effects what we watch and think about in this world. Our perspectives are changed through the way media represents it to the public.

Science with a Racial Slant

Science can easily be manipulated and used for negative purposes, because no one really knows the absolute answers. A new discovery always comes up, and while one can think they know the scientific cure it can always change. For this reason, it can be taken and used for propaganda purposes. It has legitimacy, even though it is still this unknown aspect of civilization. The Nazis used “scientific” explanations to demonstrate why Jews, Gypsies and other groups of people were inferior to the Aryan race. Physicians would measure the eyes, skulls and noses of the Jewish people in order to measure what they said was the Jewish intelligence. They also did very torturous experiments on woman and twins. They basically used Jews as guinea pigs in order to look for new discoveries, and perhaps find more differences between the Jews and the Aryans. The public associates doctors with honesty and having a desire for the common good, so by having a doctor talk about the deficiencies in the Jewish race, the public believed it.

This was also taught in school, thus young kids believed in the inferiority of the Jewish race when they heard scientific research demonstrated it. Putting a racial slant on science has been a common technique throughout history in order to alienate a group of people whether by religion, race, or nationality. It was used against Africans to encourage slavery and make it ok to treat them as less than human. It was used with African tribes in Rwanda and it is still used today in other milder forms. We must always remember that while science contains what are called facts, the answers are never totally absolute since science is beyond human control and can only be studied from a distance. It is a dangerous thing when its’ legitimacy is used to reaffirm pre-existing racist values.

Oh capitalism.

As we have discussed in class, science / scientific "back-up" naturally allows us to feel more secure about a product or issue. The discussion of Yaz and birth control pills made me think twice about how people are advertising these "safer sex" products to women. Most products have extreme side-effects, such as heart attack, stroke, and blood clots in the heart, lung, or brain. Yet no one is outraged, protesting against these pills. We have become so used to hearing the short blurb about possible negative side-effects. Also, the advertisements are strategically ordered and presented so the audience does not really get too riled up about the serious side-effects.

I found the birth control pill information site by Planned Parenthood. It seems like the reason why medical products' websites and advertisements discuss the negative symptoms so casually at the end of the ad (or page) is to achieve maximum profit. The website's information about "the disadvantages of using the birth control pill" does not straight up even say heart attack, stroke, etc. in the list, but after 5 paragraphs, at the end. In our capitalist society, the driving force is money. Is it too harsh to say that the driving force for money is greed? Maybe I'm getting too cynical, but the truth is, many people are deceived and exploited by companies, corporations, and other people, for money and profit. These birth control ads and websites are trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies, but at the same time, they are doing their best to rake in as much money as they can get. It is difficult to trust anything when you see that our society is based on deception and greed.

(However, not to be such a downer, I believe advertisements can be used to compel, interest, and bring people together to do things that are good as well.)

1 Less- Gardasil Vaccine

When the Gardasil vaccine came out, I remember many of the women I knew were rushing to have their daughters vaccinated. When I refused the vaccine, first at my primary care physician's and then at a doctor here in New York, they acted like I was crazy. I've just never been one to take a medication or vaccine that is so new and to be quite honest, not really necessary. I find it fascinating that the commercial (above) can't even definitely say that the vaccine does what it is supposed to do. The dialogue keeps saying "may protect" and strains of HPV that "might cause" cervical cancer. We've discussed society's relationship to health care so many times in class and I think that this commercial is a perfect example of American society's irrational need to find a fix for everything. Oh, by the way, the vaccine "may not protect everyone". The thing that jumps out at me the most, however, is the language used to talk about what the vaccine protects against. Cancer is the most emphasized word and at the end of the commercial, the vaccine is called the cervical cancer vaccine. This is clearly playing on America's fear of and obsession with cancer. But the vaccine doesn't protect against cancer, it protects against a few (of many) strains of HPV that might cause cancer. It seems to me that society has an insatiable desire to treat peoples' ailments or potential ailments even when we don't fully understand the nature of the problem and/or solution.

P.S. The vaccine can have some pretty scary side effects... ones that the commercial doesn't mention:




And while we're on the topic of unnecessary medical procedures...

I have never been one to get the seasonal flu shot. Maybe it's a West Coast thing or a California thing or a Bay Area thing, but where I grew up, the only people who got flu shots were ones with compromised immune systems. Since coming to New York, I've met perfectly healthy people who get flu shots every winter and several physicians have tried to persuade me to get it. My worst experience was at the NYU Health Center when I was sick earlier this semester. The physician who examined me suggested I get the seasonal flu shot and when I didn't, he tried to guilt me into it by listing all the different people I could get sick and potentially kill by not getting a flu shot. This was fascinating to me because the argument seemed to be framed around the idea that it was my duty to get the vaccine.

It’s the Most Caffeinated Time of the Year

Lo and behold, amid the twinkling lights and passersby with their brightly wrapped packages and the ten-thousandth playing of Mariah Carey’s ‘All I Want from Christmas,’ there exists another season on college campuses all across United States: finals season.

And like any major event in the U.S., this season has its corporate sponsors. In recent years, none has been more present than the Austrian company Red Bull GmbH. This past week the company’s red, white, blue, and yellow cars with the rotating beverage affixed to the hood have been stationing themselves at various high traffic points around NYU’s campus including Bobst, Cantor, and Silver. Representatives have been passing out free cans of the energy drink along with a small, accordion booklet that is a perfect example of target marketing. With a cartoon bull parody of Sir Edmund scaling Mount Everest, the cover states that “if you want to stay on top of things in this 24/7 world, you’ll need some wings.” Then on both sides of the booklet, the same cartoon bull depicts the many ways Red Bull can be beneficial. One side explains what is in the drink while the opposite shows how different types of people including people in the work force, students, hard partying night owls, and the super-star wonder mom have all realized how Red Bull can help propel them through their hectic lives.

And if Red Bull’s familiar claims to increase performance and concentration, improve reaction speed, increase endurance, and stimulate metabolism weren’t enough, a study at the University of Loughborough incorporation with the British Ministry of Environment and Transportation has cited Red Bull as a positive influence on cognitive as well as reactionary performance. Of course, the sales pitch does its best not to bring attention to the fine print. The study’s results were limited to the improvement in the “efficiency of a ‘functional energy’ drink in counteracting driver sleepiness.’ As we all know anything with caffeine in it will stimulate your body to some extent, and the fine points of the study including the drink’s range of effectiveness in correlation to the driver’s exhaustion are left up to the proactive consumer to pursue.

Interestingly, in the pamphlet Red Bull goes beyond listing its healthiest aspects including taurine and vitamins B6 and B12 to including crouching the carbohydrates and sugars as a “unique mixture of substances [that] results in a dose of pure energy.”

Though this is not necessarily medical based media criticism, I believe that Red Bull operates with the same bill of fare as the ads for Lunesta and Gardasil. They emphasize the benefits of the product, but glaze over the consequences of excessive or improper use. Furthermore, at least most people take prescriptions with a grain of seriousness while with regards to energy drinks; less savory consumers may believe that he or she is receiving an appropriate amount of vitamins. They keep chugging it down without a second thought which leads to its own medical complications such as elevated heart rate as in the case of this University of Lincoln which may have contributed her death. (http://www.heraldscotland.com/red-bull-caffeine-drink-may-have-helped-cause-student-s-death-1.901617 ) Therefore, during this crazy final season, perhaps we should think twice about how many energy drinks we’re guzzling down when ninety minutes—an entire sleep cycle—may be just as refreshing and less harmful.

Censorship in South Park

I have already posted my blog entry for the week (about Ambien CR and overmedication), but I came across this clip recently, and thought it was relevant.

On the subject of censorship on television (regarding the first presentation during the last class), I thought the following episode of South Park addressed the issue rather humorously:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes/103944/

["It Hits the Fan" Season 5 Episode 1]

In this episode, everyone makes a huge deal about how characters on a police drama will say "Sh*t" on television, while saying the word several times themselves (as shown by a ticker that keeps track of how many times it is said on the bottom right of the screen), thereby highlighting the difference between television and reality.

Science in Popular Culture.

"The idea that science is a separate social realm, dedicated to discovering laws of nature unaffected by ideologies or politics, has been a myth surrounding the hard sciences" (Struken/Cartwright).

Sherlock Holmes is briefly mentioned in this chapter so I thought about investigation stories and popular culture detective genre. As such, detective stories have social commentary ranging from having a strong emphasis on scientific evolution, such as in the stories of Sherlock Holmes, to the moral decay and hopelessness of the times as portrayed in later works of "The Maltese Falcon" or "farewell My Lovely."

Sherlock Holmes exalts in solving the unknown crime and as scientific genius finds resolution, involved in an ambiguous game of science and knowledge. He is respected by Scotland Yard, and reflects the optimism of budding scientific discoveries, such as the finger print. To solve crimes he relies heavily on science, however limited it seems by comparison to present day shows like CSI, Bones and the like. But it is more interesting to me how according to Sturken and Cartwright, "Scientific looking does not occur in isolation from other social context although society may have some stake in seeing science as a separate social realm"

In original stories/films of Sherlock Holmes, there is a strong emphasis on scientific evolution whereas the new Guy Richie Sherlock Holmes has an emphasis on technology and digital imagery. Based on the trailer it would appear that this movie is less about science and more about turning a scientific genius into a swash buckling ham, having very little to do with scientific skills. What reflection on the times does this film cast now in comparison to the "you have less frontal development than I expected" turn of the century? It seems to me the latter celebrates our era of technology and computer generated enhancements, suspense of disbelief, and an ideology of the hero will save the day. Without having seen it, it is hard to say, but what I did see in the trailer is enough to recognize a very different social point of view. I'll be curious to see if this Sherlock Holmes does cocaine and locks himself away in the world of the 'other' as he did in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle brilliant original depiction.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQbmFAE5WI New Version
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOyKEZUyiDc Older Version (full film)

The Choice: Good Health vs Sleep

AMBIEN CR promises to relieve those suffering from insomnia, as shown in one of its many commercials below:

However, here's a video telling us about the actual medication, without the fancy visuals:

The points that I missed during the first commercial, obviously distracted by the clever use of the rooster, I managed to pick up during the more scientific second video: Ambien is addictive, it is a hallucinogen, it can be fatal (albeit in rare cases), and may cause the taker to eat or drive without having any recollection of having done so. These points are not hammered home by the commercial: the calming voice tells us that even though it will have adverse side effects, we shouldn't mind because it puts us to sleep.

This leads me to ask the following question: Should insomniacs have to choose between taking a drug that sedates them to the point of hallucinations and may have a long-term effect on their brain, or staying relatively healthy but not being able to sleep?

Another important point to note is that Ambien can only be used over a short period of time without causing permanent damage to the body. Therefore, actual insomniacs will have to revert to not being able to sleep (as they cannot continue taking sleep aides after a certain amount of time). This negates the purpose of the medication for people who actually need it. It also encourages its use by people who only can't fall asleep sometimes, thereby ensuring that they turn to medication instead of something simpler (and better for them) such as a cup of hot tea.

These were just some thoughts to supplement our discussion on the rising use of medication to accomplish tasks that aren't necessarily impossible.

Doc, I Got The RLS. Bad.

I made a comment in class about the fact that whenever a "Restless Leg Syndrome" commercial aired, I started to feel the symptoms and was convinced I had this rare, yet treatable disease with the help of GlaxoSmithKline drugs. Turns out what these pharmaceutical companies are doing is "disease mongering" or

"enlarging the market for a treatment by convincing people that they are sick and need medical intervention. Typically, the disease is vague, with nonspecific symptoms spanning a broad spectrum of severity—from everyday experiences many people would not even call “symptoms,” to profound suffering. The market for treatment gets enlarged in two ways: by narrowing the definition of health so normal experiences get labeled as pathologic, and by expanding the definition of disease to include earlier, milder, and presymptomatic forms (e.g., regarding a risk factor such as high cholesterol as a disease)

What was most interesting to me is that in 2003 GlaxoSmithKline launched a campaign for raise awareness for Restless Leg Syndrome. The idea of a drug company trying to raise awareness for a particular disease should raise some eyebrows. They're not a charitable or research organization. They just want to make money off of people's hypochondriaric ways.

In 2005 they issued a press release titled "New survey reveals common yet under recognized disorder—restless legs syndrome—is keeping Americans awake at night." It just so happens that later in 2005, the FDA approved the drug ropinirole as a treatment method for RLS.

Furhermore, both the media and GlaxoSmithKline stressed the “…relatively few doctors know about restless legs. This is the most common disorder your doctor has never heard of" angle. Which basically says, we here at GlaxoSmithKline know more than your doctors do, you better tell them what's going on.

So let's recap. In 2003, a drug company starts a campaign to raise awareness for a little known "disease" (if you can even call it that). Then they release a document which plays into the mystery surrounding the "disorder." Notice how it's called a disorder because it is not medically recognized as a disease. The term "disorder" connotes the idea that there is something out of the ordinary, or something that we can fix that is keeping us up at night. I also just realized that GlaxoSmithKline did an incredible job of introducing another aspect into the mix. Not only are they marketing pills for their ADD leg disease, but by talking about insomnia, they are subtly referencing their sleep medication Ambien, and a host of other sleeping pills they produce. Finally, they urge consumers to educate their doctors. They are literally telling me, a 20-year-old college student to tell my ivy-league educated, award-winning, book-publishing doctor that there's a disease out there, of which she's not familiar, but that she shouldn't worry because GlaxoSmithKline has got us covered.

Science, Religion, and Holy Cows

This week we talked about scientific looking and how it is a discourse like every other. We are still in that Enlightenment mentality that says science = truth, when in reality it is subject to bias like every other. Corporations fund studies, governments mandate vaccinations, and DNA evidence can convict almost anybody.

You know the discourse of science has spiraled out of control when it is being used to prove everything under the sun. We have been indoctrinated with the science vs religion but even that seems to collapse under the weight of science.

I found this video of a cow born in Connecticut with what looks like a cross on his forehead. (Actually I think it looks more like a lightning bolt. Reminds me of Harry Potter, or Lady Gaga.) The owner proclaims it must be "divine intervention" because she knows all about "reproduction and genetics". Really? I don't know if the cross on the calf's forehead is at all a message to us lowly beings, but I do know one thing, those breeders were pretty quick to call the local news. How sacred is a cow that's used for press? really what the breeders want is "higher milk prices". I don't think Jesus would want to further raise the cost of living his people are already jobless, hungry, and in debt.

Things Are Getting Ridiculous

I first saw this poster in a subway car directly after leaving one of our Media Criticism classes... and well... it's asking for it! This advertisement almost blatantly attempts to play off of the normal cliche's that plague the advertising industry.

The advertisement is for Remy Martin, purveyor of "fine cognac", but how would you ever even know that? Unless you recognize their trademark centaur logo in the bottom left of the poster, or you can read the almost-fine print label under the "Remy Martin" label in the other corner, there is literally nothing in the advertisement that indicates it is for an alcoholic beverage. Because of this, it becomes clearly evident that the entire campaign is focused on drawing in customers simply because of the innuendos presented by the two women and the cliche tagline "Things are getting interesting".


For starters, this ad is incredibly demeaning towards women, using them as bait almost to attract male customers. To take this further, who are "things getting interesting" for? The women? OR, the man admiring the two flirtatious women? In both instances, women are depicted as being mere objects for men; objects used to pleasure men in some manner. This sort of advertising is so over used that it is often surprising that it dominates the liquor industry even still. It is my hope that people become more critical of these sort of cheap gimmecks; so much so that the industry is forced to alter their advertising strategies. With enough social change, hopefully this demeaning depiction of women can be less prevalent in media, and eventually vanish entirely.

Food Inc: Capitalism and the Food Industry

In Robert Kenner’s documentary titled, Food Inc., Kenner, with the help of authors Eric Schlosser and Michael Pollan, as well as countless other farmers and other players in the food production business, works to shed some light on the greatly veiled food industry that exists today. The documentary contemplates the role of ethics within the current method of raw food production, as well as how the methods are largely a response to the growth of the fast food industry since the 1950s and what that says about American capitalism.
I have always been greatly interested in the food production industry, as well as in issues of animal cruelty. As a result, I have seen many documentaries over the years that depict the horrible ways in which animals are treated in our food production industry. For this reason, I was less shocked with the horrific images within the documentary than I was of the overwhelming role that American capitalism has played in reaching the state that the industry is currently in. For the first time, this connection between capitalism and the negative aspects of our food industry was clearly illuminated.
While watching the documentary, it was shocking to see how often I found myself comparing the food industry to today’s media. The reason why both are so similar is because both systems are heavily rooted in capitalism. The food industry, as mentioned earlier, was greatly changed when the idea of fast food was introduced. In order to make the most money, big fast food chains relied heavily on their food providers. As chains became more popular and profitable, so did certain food suppliers who were then able to buy up other companies, resulting in fewer suppliers. Now, there are essentially only a handful of companies that run our entire food system.
What happened to the food industry is basically what also happened to the media industry. In order to make the most profit, media companies began to converge resulting in fewer companies controlling the entire media system. In addition, in just the same way that food is being mass produced and it’s quality can be considered to be going down, many aspects of the media can be seen as following the same trend. In news for example, news reports are forced to fit in with the capitalist agenda determined by the companies that run them. Often, this results in a decrease in the quality of news reporting, as reports often cover noncontroversial issues in order to gain more profits in advertisement sales. Whether news reports or BigMacs, capitalism and the desire for profit that stems from it has greatly hampered both food and media systems.
To combat this, Kenner submits a notion that is very much similar to Michael Moore’s advice for combating capitalism in his documentary Capitalism: A Love Story. Like Moore, Kenner suggests that the power rests in the average person, not the big businesses that rule almost every sector of the Western market. Schlosser said it best, stating “the irony is that the average consumer doesn’t think of themselves as very powerful… [but] when we run an item across the scanner, we are voting! For local or not, organic or not…” Essentially, Schlosser asserts that individuals can, in fact, fight “the man” even if just little by little… purchase by purchase. Often when facing big businesses whose influence is terrifying, such as in the case of the food industry, an individual could take on a defeatist attitude. This documentary however was greatly empowering and hopefully it can assist in creating the cultural change necessary to empower others to realize that each item they purchase is a vote they are casting as well.

correction

sorry - re-reading and I realized I wrote that drug companies "pour hundreds of dollars into advertising"...meant to say "hundreds of MILLIONS"

Adderall for all

Perhaps it is in the nature of Attention Deficit Disorder that its diagnosis is difficult to confirm or deny. Since it is a behavioral problem, its symptoms are described, rather than confirmed through blood tests. A combination of zealous doctors and impatient parents contributes to the drugs' saturation of young American society. I am in no way trying to discredit the validity or seriousness of the disorder, as there are people who benefit greatly from medication. I do believe, however, that many children are unnecessarily taking the drug. Regardless of my feelings on Adderall, the drug is an interesting topic with respect to media.

What I find so interesting about Adderall as it relates to Media is that the drug is the leading of its kind. The brand "Adderall" was not introduced until 1996 and unlike prescription drugs intended for use to treat problems such as high blood pressure/cholesterol, depression or osteoporosis, Adderall does not advertise through popular media outlets. The companies behind Lipitor, Zoloft, Boniva, Valtrex, etc. all pour hundreds of dollars into advertisements: tv spots, print ads, online pop-ups. Adderall, on the other hand, is advertised through primary or secondary sources - either by doctors themselves, or parents of children who are on the drug. I don't know a lot about the prescription drug industry, but I suspect the reason many drugs are advertised is because of competition. While I could name at least three medications for high blood pressure, I could only name one drug for ADD: Adderall.

In recent years, the drug has carved a whole new market amongst college students looking for an academic edge. Even in people without difficulty focusing on a regular basis, Adderall can improve concentration. Where many drugs have negative effects (or none at all) when consumed by people not suffering from the disorder they are intended to treat, Adderall is fairly mild. In addition to inducing unnatural focus, the drug is known to decrease appetite. This, of course, appeals to an entirely different (an enormous) market: people looking to loose weight. I've posted the url below for an article posted on CNN.com that discusses the appeal of the drug as a dietary supplement:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/03/21/vs.adderall/index.html

It'll be interesting to follow this drug - I wonder if it will become so common that a weaker version will be available over the counter in the future...

"One less" life.

I'm sure everyone is aware of the semi-new vaccine "Gardasil". The vaccine is targeted at preventing HPV, with could prevent forms of cervical cancer. When it was first released I remember handfuls of my friends going to get it. So of course as a dumb consumer I decided that maybe it was a good idea to get it as well. It's sad to say that I did no research on it first, when I asked my mom if it was a good idea she said sure, so I went ahead and got the series of three shots. As time goes on there are more and more controversies linked to this vaccine. It's been released that three girls actually died just hours after getting the shot. Two of the girls were only 12 and 19. All of their deaths were due to blood clotting or heart problems.

"the 1,637 adverse vaccination reactions reported to the FDA via the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) included 371 serious reactions. Of the 42 women who received the vaccine while pregnant, 18 experienced side effects ranging from spontaneous abortion to fetal abnormities "

In the commercial they are promoting female empowerment, and the control over your own body. They show that YOU have the choice to protect yourself. But really in this case the risks of side-effects greatly outweigh the benefits of this vaccine because though human papilloma virus is scary it is also treatable, it isn't necessarily life threatening. Do you really want to be One-Less?

YAZ

After we discussed prescription drug ads on class last time, I suddenly started looking for different ads on YouTube like a freak. I found an ad from YAZ birth control from 2007. Although many of the ads I saw used many techniques we discussed in class when explaining side effects, (i.e. turning the music higher, changing the letters, using a voice over, etc.) I feel like this commercial in specific was very explicit about the side effects of Yaz. Instead of hiding them with music and voice overs, one of the actual actresses talks about them. All the other aspects of this commercial reflect the norm in prescription drug ads (the party, music, young friends in a conversation), the only difference is how the side effects are mentioned. I believe this to be a very bold move in part of the company, but at the same time we can see the newer ads in which they resort to the techniques we talked about in class. Also, something else that needs to be mentioned is the fact that they promote how this pill helps with PMDD and not how it is a contraceptive, which is something else we discussed in class.

Check the commercial!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipTjROfdkV4

The Invasion of Doctor's Offices By Something Other Than Germs

After our discussion of the pharmaceutical advertising in America, I began to think of Drug Representatives, and how this is seen as a sound profession in this country. Basically, Drug Reps are people who go around to doctors offices, enticing the doctors with a whole lot of junk (pens, notepads, etc.) so that the doctor will write a prescription for their product. In essence, these drug reps are just legalized drug dealers, which I think is kinda bizarre.

My sister is currently in her last year of pharmacy school and as a requirement for graduation, has to go on rotations where she works in various clinics and pharmacies to get a sense for opportunities in the pharmaceutical field. On one of her rotations at a nursing home for the elderly, she described how she witnessed one of these drug reps who came into the home dressed in scrubs so that they could better connect with the doctors who also wore scrubs (she could identify the rep based on the fact that drug reps wear badges, and she saw this badge pinned to his scrubs); after all, a doctor is probably more likely to sit down with and listen to a drug rep who is dressed in the same attire as he or she is, rather than one who is dressed in a fancy business suite and might be seen as too fancy for a hospital like setting. It is just weird the lengths that these people will go to in order to sell their product. She was describing another time when she happened to be in a doctor's office outside of work and she noticed that all of the receptionist were writing with pens advertising a drug, on pads of paper advertising this same drugs, in addition to posters for this drug being prominently displayed. It was a clear sign that the office had been visited by a drug rep.

I think this whole concept is just plain disturbing because it makes you wonder how many doctors write prescriptions for unnecessary drugs just because of these drug reps and their peddling of persciption drugs. Especially unnerving is the fact that drug reps don't need to have a background in medicine or pharmacy which means they probably have little knowledge about their drugs, other than what they learned from the company that makes the drug.

So I was just watching one of the new episodes of "Scrubs" on Hulu and up pops one of those one minute long commercial break interruptions and I just had to pause in the middle of the show to blog about it, as it was about Ambien, the sleeping pill :P
The first 15 seconds of the commercial features a rooster (cultural sign/image icon woohoo!) following a woman around with a voice-over asking, "Still tired of morning coming at the middle of the night? Still tired the next day, too?" By 0:17 the tired woman is tucking herself into bed peacefully because Ambien "helps you fall asleep quickly" (with a small caption at the bottom that reads "Dramatization" haha). By 0:22 the narrator is already reading off the warnings and side effects for using Ambien....and continues to do so for the next 36 seconds (with more captions detailing additional warnings) before smoothly transitioning into a suggestion to "ask your doctor about Ambien" during the last two seconds of the commercial.
While all of these warnings and disclaimers are going on, the video shows the obnoxious rooster leaving the woman's room and going away down the street as she sleeps peacefully and wakes up refreshed in the morning. Apparently, the possibility of sleepwalking, driving with memory loss, and possible risk of suicide and fatality aren't really that important when it comes to getting your 6-7 hours of sleep and making the rooster go away. Go figure.

Cialis

Since the hot topic this week in class discussion was about drug ads, I figured I'd bring in the male enhancement portion of them. I think it is crazy that pharmeceutical companies can even advertise on TV, but it is very strange that we allow male enhancement ads. These ads are especially frequent on sports channels, during football and later at night. I personally do not like these ads with all of the male and female fondling, and the awkward fake intimacy of the actors. I don't necessarily like these ads at all, nor do I really care to watch them.

Cialis is a brand that has advertisements all over the television. Men with erectile dysfunction are supposed to take the 36 hour pill. Of course the ad also says talk to your doctor to see if Cialis is right for you. I agree that it is very strange that people are being asked to ask their doctors to take a pill. The doctor is no longer suggesting a pill, but the patient is. It is a complete reversal of roles. But these commercials are trying to promote the product and get men to believe they have erectile dysfunction or that they need this miracle drug to help their sex lives. The commercial only quickly discusses (in the very fast talking, while people are floating around being super happy) the possible symptoms such as back pain, indigestion, headache, muscle aches and more serious things like decrease or loss of vision and hearing. I think that that is kind of a big deal, although I'm glad that the side effects do not say that death or heart attack is possible. It also says that if your erection last longer then 4 hours, you should call your doctor. I can't imagine that that would be a nice experience for anyone. I am glad that these companies are supposed to tell the side effects though because they are very important for the consumer. Overall, I think that it is ridiculous that the US still allows these ads on TV. People should tell their doctors what their problems are and then the doctor should suggest products, not the other way around.

Latisse

Of all the absurd medications and procedures advertised on television, the advertisements for the new prescription Latisse featuring Brooke Shields takes the cake! The new gel gives people fuller and longer eyelashes and requires daily application. Instead of buying a high end mascara or in the worst case have a professional put on some extensions, Latisse suggests that women actually apply a potentially harmful new drug to their eyelids. On the Latisse website it is recommended the product should be used like "every other routine," making it appear like no big deal. When I tried to find the side effects I also had some difficulty. There is a safety section that mentions "possible side effects" which include things such as itchiness or redness and more concerning side effects such as skin darkening and eyelid redness. In smaller print under a picture describes an even more disturbing side effect of the product: "brown pigmentation of the colored part of the eye which is likely to be permanent" and "hair growth to occur in other areas of the skin. " The smaller font under the the heading "Special warnings associated with Latisse use." Additionally, there is a separate PDF file that outlines even more information about the product. The website also contains a historical timeline of the "evolution of lash enhancers" that they begin in 4000 BC when men and women of Egypt used makeup to eventuate their eyes. In the 1800's, the development of Mascara occurs and there is even a section about the popularity of photography and compact mirrors. The website is comparing their product to harmless makeup to try and downplay the serious medical nature of the drug. They are also making note of the social pressures that women face when they mention the development of photography. Essentially Latisse is telling readers that it is because of photography and media images that women need to use their product.

Check the website out for yourself.

http://www.latisse.com/Default.aspx?return=true

While watching television this morning I saw a commercial for WebMD, the American corporation that is believed to provide health information services to the public.  The commercial promoted a “heath check” for depression.  It went further to recommend that if the viewer had any “feelings of sadness” he or she should visit the website to answer a few questions to “easily and discreetly assess your symptoms, treatments, lifestyle, and medical history”.  The commercial did a good job of making it sound like we all should go to the website as the symptoms described were very vague.  Individuals are no longer persuaded to ask doctors for help.  The creation of websites like WebMD make it seem as though doctors aren’t even needed for a diagnosis.  Such websites give individuals another means to answer health questions or problems.  Could this possibly have to do with how expensive doctor visits are? Or how hard it is to even get an appointment with doctors? 

Through a variety of multiple choice questions the individual can determine what is wrong with us on the WebMD website.  The slogan for the website is “Better Information. Better Health”.  However, I have used this website many times in the past few years and my sore throat has been diagnosed as the Black plague on more than one occasion, but I’m still here today.  So either I’m really strong and have a great immune system or WebMD isn’t as good as it says it is. 

http://www.webmd.com/

 

RED, Pink, and Conflicts of Interest

In Chapter 9 of “Practices of Looking,” Sturken and Cartwright mention different ways that corporate marketing and advertising can help to generate consumer health awareness and also promote charity venues. The chapter explains that the charity benefits from donations and exposure, the corporation benefits from their image of benevolence, and the consumer benefits from the good feeling of supporting an important cause. Previously this year, I posted a link to the blog about something I found very interesting, the branding of different diseases by companies. I would argue that the endorsement of different health problems by companies is not only to generate consumer awareness for health issues, but also to capitalize on consumers and gain large amounts of profit.

This made me think of the RED organization, which nine major companies are associated with in order to help donate money to the AIDS cause in Africa. The RED organization is an easy and effective way to donate and help a cause, and consumers can feel good about buying a RED product knowing that some of the proceeds get donated. RED is perfect because the money spent for merchandise you would buy anyway is going to a cause with no extra effort by the customer, as long as the customer chooses to buy a RED product rather than another. In this case, if both of the products were the same and one product donated a portion of the cost to AIDS, I would bet that the consumer would choose the one that supported the cause, as a simple way to feel they are contributing. Integrating a donation system within certain brands and consequently capitalizing off of it raises a moral question, that although it is great that the RED campaign is raising funds for AIDS, is it okay for them to also earn a profit while doing so?

Clearly, the RED organization knows how consumers operate, and are taking advantage of that in these campaigns. However, RED has become a look and a socially conscious trend and fashion statement, especially with GAP’s RED T-shirts and endorsements by celebrities, most notably Bono. Therefore, using this form of corporate marketing has become very beneficial for the companies involved in the RED campaign. Situations like this continue to be debated; when corporations endorse a cause in order to gain a profit, and the public is unsure of where, exactly, the money is going. This most frequently happens with Breast Cancer, where products with pink ribbons on them tend to sell more than others, but the corporations cap their donation to the cause at a certain amount, despite the people who continue to buy the product assuming that they are contributing to the cause. Granted, this debate escalates when focusing on the ties between the private corporate interests of pharmaceutical companies in relation to the business of health and national healthcare, and the debate continues today.

Cialis: Spoofs and Side Effects

When we were talking in class today about how many pharmaceutical ads relate to sex, I immediately thought of the Viagra and Cialis commercials that I always see late at night when I’m up watching trashy VH1 shows or something similar (Tool Academy, anyone?). I also thought of this mock Cialis commercial that I stumbled upon a while ago, in which Cuba Gooding, Jr. acts as a man who no longer suffers from erectile dysfunction after taking 36-hour Cialis.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1833992/cialis_commercial/

I thought the video was funny because of how outrageous it is in its portrayal of the effects of the drug. But I also noticed something this time around that I hadn’t noticed when I viewed this video initially. We had talked in class about how oftentimes in pharmaceutical advertisements when the side effects are being mentioned, the on-screen images will portray happiness and excitement and fun in order to distract from the harsh and off-putting words and diseases being mentioned in the background narration. This video expertly satirizes that practice. In fact, I remember that when I watched this video for the first time, I was so taken aback by the ridiculousness nature of it that I barely listened to the voiceover; it was the same generic sounding man I had heard on countless other commercials.

This time, I paid more attention to the combination of images and words. When the narrator spoke of the side effects, which “may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache,” the images on the screen were of a happy couple cuddling in bed oblivious to the erection pitching their sheets up and then that same couple driving through with his erection guiding the steering wheel. These images are so absurd that the entire focus of the audience goes toward them, not the dangerous side effects or other information that is offered about the product. Although this commercial is clearly a parody of Cialis ads, it is interesting as it sheds light on some of the tactics used by pharmaceutical companies in their advertising.

“One Less” but you may also get fever, dizziness, or nausea!

As we discussed in class this week from Practices of Looking, the term “visual culture” encompasses a wide range of forms from fine art to films and television to advertising to visual data from science, law, and medicine. Scientific looking is not isolated from cultural contexts but rather, it is filled with ideologies and cultural meaning (we can’t get away from those ideologies, can we?).

Since the 90s, the United States has allowed direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs, allowing consumer-patients to receive information about medicine choices. Even though these consumer-patients cannot purchase such as drug without a doctor’s prescription, pharmaceutical companies market their drugs through direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising tactics (“ask your doctor about…”). Many of these ads offer abstract promises such as being more fulfilled, normal, happier, etc, through the use of images of people in post treatment states of being. Simultaneously, however, by law, these print ads and TV commercials are required to discuss the conditions and potential negative side effects the drug can produce. They will often try to do this as subtly as possible via fine print on print ads and verbally racing through them (listen out for the chipmunk squeal) at the end of the commercials.

On such advertising campaign that really lends to this topic is for Gardasil. In November 2006, Merck & Co., Inc. announced the launch of a national print, television, and online advertising campaign for the world’s first cervical cancer vaccine. Adding to Merck’s ongoing cervical cancer and HPV education efforts, the campaign, called One Less, encourages females who are eligible for the vaccine to begin their vaccination series and to also continue to see their doctor for regular healthcare and screening. To inform and encourage these girls and women, the campaign focuses on a strong and positive message that is designed to empower them to want to become (or help their daughters want to become) “one less” person who will battle cervical cancer.

The campaign also focuses on important information about the vaccine not being about to fully protect everyone and not being able to prevent all types of cervical cancer. In each of their ads, they always address that ongoing cervical cancer screenings are important. They also add that Gardasil is not for use in pregnant women and will not treat cervical cancer. Maybe just as popular as their tag line “one less” is their rant that “Gardasil can cause injection site-pain, swelling, itching and redness as well as fever, dizziness or nausea.” I can practically say that by-heart now.

Before it's in Fashion, it's in Vogue

Does this look like the Oprah you know?!?! Certainly not, and even in 1998 when this photo was taken, this isn't what she really looked like. Make no mistake - I love me some Oprah, but this Vogue cover seems a bit contradictory to what she has been telling everyone for years. A big part of her mantra is that beauty come from within people, and being yourself and not succumbing to the world's pressures is what makes a strong person blah blah blah. When she was approached to do the cover of Vogue, of course she was ecstatic as anybody would be, but it was a conditional offer. Anna Wintour, Vogue's universally hated editor-in-chief "suggested" that Oprah lose 30 pounds to "look her best" for the shoot, and when Anna Wintour "suggests" something, it generally means that it should be done. Not now, but right now. So Oprah put away the cookies for a couple months and hit the gym hard, but what does this really say about a) Oprah and her values and b) the influence something like a magazine can have over the wealthiest woman in the world?

First of all, let's just take a second to look at this photo. It's Oprah, on a lawn chair in some beautifully grassy hillside in a sasafrass black dress with sex hair saying "come and get me, boys" with her eyes and airbrushed jawline. Did you ever think you would see a sexualized image of Oprah Winfrey? This is the same woman who hosted a one-hour special show solely about poop. The media issues here go both ways. First, how can we, as a culture, be so obsessed with Oprah that we look to her to be on a high fashion magazine? And secondly, what power does Vogue have in our daily lives to convince even Oprah that her status will be elevated by being on the cover?

Even after this critique, I still love her show. And look at those guns!

I am African

The "I am African" campaign that we touched upon briefly in class on Wednesday fascinates me. Upon googling it, I found out that the campaign is part of Keep A Child Alive. While this is certainly a great cause, I have some problems with the campaign itself. First as Song already mentioned, the people in the ad are wearing "tribal" war paint which exoticizes Africa and the idea of "Africanness". The beaded jewelry that many of the celebrities in the ads are wearing is also meant to create this sense of "Africanness" when in reality, beaded jewelry comes from all over the world, much like the bright woven cloth that Mercer refers to in the article we read for Wednesday. Like the Benetton ads that Mercer cites, this ad is meant to create a sense of diversity and togetherness when all it does is stifle any real dialogue about the issues that Africans face. This ad is playing on diversity and a sense of interconnectedness in order to draw attention to their cause. The ad seems seems to me to detract from the cause since it doesn't really open up dialogue. Since I had no idea what the ad was for, I focused on the celebrities rather than the cause. Diversity and Africa in this instance seem to be marketing ploys.

Joseph Lister and the myth of 'chronic halitosis'

If you want to kill bad breath causing germs, you use Listerine. It's been around forever and it's in practically every medicine cabinet. If something says that it's 99.9% effective, and that 9 out of 10 doctors use it and recommend it, then it just has to be the best. Well, not so much. This wintry-green, tonsil burning potion that we gargle every morning was actually used (in an extremely distilled form) as floor cleaner and a gonorrhea remedy. But it wasn't a terribly revenue-generating product until the 1920's, when according to Steve Levitt's and Stephen J. Dubner's pop culture and economics book "Freakonomics,"

it was pitched as a solution to 'chronic halitosis,' the faux medical term that the Listerine advertising group created in 1921 to describe bad breath. By creating a 'medical condition' for which consumers now felt they needed a cure, Listerine created the market for their mouthwash. Until that time, bad breath was not conventionally considered catastrophe, but Listerine's ad campaign changed that. As the advertising scholar James B. Twitchell writes, 'Listerine did not make mouthwash as much as it made halitosis.' Listerine's new ads featured forlorn young women and men, eager for marriage but turned off by their mate's rotten breath. 'Can I be happy with him in spite of that?' one maiden asked herself. In just seven years, the company's revenues rose from $115,000 to more than $8 million.

It's weird to think about not caring about how one's breath smells. We have after coffee mints, after dinner mints, mint spray, mint strips, mint gum and so forth. There's a multibillion dollar industry solely based on the premise that society's breath should smell like a type of herb. And why mint? What is so great about mint? It's actually a pretty intense flavor and scent. It's fascinating that the terms 'mint' and 'fresh' have become synonymous, and that over the last hundred years we have not only grown accustomed to the smell of "fresh" a.k.a. "minty" breath, but also expect it, and if one doesn't have it, not only is their breath foul but we usually consider that person to be foul, unkempt, and dirty. How many times have you seen a cheesy guy in a sitcom do a "spritz, spritz" of breath spray before walking up to a hot girl?
Similar to soap, we don't actually need Listerine, medically. It doesn't kill germs that create halitosis, because there is no such thing as halitosis. Halitosis is human breath, repackaged as something that could ruin a marriage according to Listerine's first ads. In the case of Listerine's ad campaign which drove sales through the roof, the advertisers relied on the use of fear to sell their product. One of our supposed biggest fears is to end up as old maids or spinsters destined to die alone. However, if our breath is fresh that's one less reason for our mates to leave us, and we can live happily ever after.

White is Beautiful ( or that is what we are told to believe)

This week in class we discussed how dirtiness is associated with people of other races and ethnicities. Our society is obsessed with cleanliness and often this cleanliness is equal to whiteness. When we see commercials telling us to give money to orphans in Africa, it always shows them lying in garbage and it mentions how these people can’t even bathe in clean water. Slumdog Millionaire provoked emotions in the audience by showing young children sleeping in garbage. Apparently, the worst state of life is not being able to bathe or have pure water. The advertising industry plays off this all the time from advertising bottled water that comes from the fresh streams of Fiji, to the new soap that doesn’t leave soap scum on your body, or simply the new products for making sure all the germs come off your counter tops. These commercials usually portray Caucasian, middle to upper class women who enjoy bathing, or cleaning because of such a great new products. How often do we see cleaning products advertised with minorities as the demonstrators?

While looking into this subject, I cam across a website dedicated to posting advertisements which are considered controversial, but nevertheless had been produced to advertise products we have all seen in the stores. The one I am posting on this blog shows an Indian women and an Indian man, who we find out is a celebrity, who are obviously in love. For some reason they split and years later she sees him on the cover of a magazine with another women, who is Caucasian. Then she sees him on the street with his new girl friend and their eyes meet, but he doesn’t go back to talk with her. The camera then shows her looking at a TV with an advertisement. This advertisement is for a Ponds product. This advertisement was for a product that they claimed contained some sort of chemical to produce a glowing white, pink color in ones skin. So the message is that she could maybe get him back if she changed the color of her skin to appear Caucasian. Even though this isn’t advertising soap it still has to do with one’s hygiene. The fact that this advertisement was actually produced in England in today’s times is disgusting. Not to mention the fact that England has a huge Indian population. I also find it interesting how the people they use to portray the Indian people in the commercial aren’t even dark skinned to begin with. If you think about our entertainment industry only a few people, become famous with dark skin. Most of the African American women who are famous have very Caucasian features, with extremely light skin. A couple examples of these women are Halley Barry and Tyro Banks.

Even in India the people who are famous for their roles in movies and as singers, are of lighter skin. I find it strange that this commercial is advertising a product for lighter skin when the female already has light skin. I guess in the end they still want to appeal to the public and they think by showing beautiful, light-skinned, women people are more inclined to associate their product with beauty. I don’t agree with this, but perhaps beauty products sell better if a beautiful light skinned female or male is advertising a beauty product? In the end the company is out to make money.

Here is a blatant example of a beauty product reflecting the dominant ideology that raises whiteness to the top of all other races. To be clean is to be white; to be dark is to be dirty. As a result one must change their appearance or adapt some attribute of the idealized Caucasian person to rise above their lower position. Lifestyle is also connected to cleanliness and in turn whiteness. An upper middle class housewife must have everything clean, which is why this character is portrayed in commercials for cleaning products. Or in this case an upper class Indian women must use this beauty product in order to be whiter.

http://www.cracked.com/article/182_8-racist-ads-you-wont-believe-are-from-last-few-years/

Diasporic Characters in Film and Television

During this week’s classes, we discussed the diasporic themes found in hip hop music and the issues embedded in postcolonial media. However, what stuck me this week was the mention of how the fairly generic image of the “Bubbles,” the baby girl with the bubbles floating up from the washing basin became exclusively synonymous with Pears Soap. I began to wonder which other images have become so prominently associated with a particular brand. Though the three circle silhouette of Mickey Mouse’s head is instantly recognizable, it is by no means generic and neither are other brand manufactured symbols like it. However, one image did occur to me. The rough collie’s association with the protagonist of Eric Knight’s novel “Lassie Come Home” ever since it debuted in 1943.

Furthermore, as recently as the 2005 version of "Lassie Come Home," the Lassie franchise has been revived multiple times while other animal based ones have faded into memory. Why does the character of Lassie endure?

I believe it is due to the nature of basic story of Lassie. A Depression era Yorkshire family, suffering from financial difficulties, is forced to sell their son’s beloved collie to a Scottish duke. Despondent and homesick, the collie is freed from her new home by the duke’s kind niece Lassie then embarks on a perilous journey across the English countryside to be reunited with her family. At its heart, “Lassie Come Home” is the tale of a diaspora. The circumstances that force her family to sell her are not unlike those felt by the thousands of people that were driven from Europe during times of hardship, particularly during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Her journey back home echoes the desires of those who left behind family members in their homeland, and hoped to one day be able to return and reconnect with their kin.

Today, the image of Lassie has transformed in the popular consciousness to be a rescue dog that saves Timmy from the well, but at the heart of every incarnation of the character is the theme that she always wishes to return home to her beloved master. It is the belief that one will face great dangers to return to one’s family that keeps the character of Lassie in the public’s consciousness and it is a story that is revisited again and again in books and movies featuring both human and animal protagonists.

"Good Hair" : Images of African-Americans in the Media

I recently watched Chris Rock's film Good Hair, and realized that the concept of what is considered "beautiful hair" relates to our discussion with cleanliness.

Cleanliness implies a controlled situation, which usually puts citizens of the industrialized world at ease. Similarly, calm, "relaxed" hair puts those interacting with an African-American woman at ease. They are able to consider her an "equal" because she does not have typical African hair.

This ridiculous notion is being fought by indie-media, but is still prevalent in mainstream media.

The above advertisement tells us that straight hair is beautiful hair. It is entirely probable that the hair of both these women is completely different in texture, but they are discouraged from embracing it because there new, straight hair allegedly makes them beautiful in the eyes of society.

Advertising media throughout history is fraught with ideas that encourage men and women to conform to the American societal ideal (which is, unfortunately, more often than not, the image of a white American). The differences between the races are completely disregarded, and everyone strives to look the same. Instead of emphasizing what makes each of us unique and beautiful, we all mask our differences to conform. Women of color, especially, are seen as wild, and as objects to be tamed, as is evident in the advertisement below:

She is wearing animal print clothing, and is in a position of vulnerability, inviting the viewer to "fix" her. It is important to note her hair: It is not "good hair", and therefore aims to disturb the viewer.

Such images of overt "African-ness" do not put viewers at ease, and therefore are not seen as prominently in the media. The following Chris Rock quote from Good Hair serves as a testament to just how far contemporary society still has to go in terms of tolerance and racial equality: "Good hair is white hair."

Slimming Seaweed Soap

As we have discussed in class there was this newly found obsession with hygiene. Importance of hygiene goes hand in hand with a stressed importance of outer beauty, and in this day and age that also stresses peoples weight. Americans buy into all these ways of losing weight, wether it be diet pills, cellulite creams, or hundred calorie packs, we do it all. But, the most absurd in my mind is the fact that we would believe in a "slimmig soap". Their key slogan is "lathering up for a meltdown" in which they are refering to fatty cells that supposedly go away with the use of this product, and "cleansing outside and reducing fat inside" . I am biased since I have never put this soap to the test, but I'd say that the odds are in my favor.

Fabri Fibra- Italian Hip Hop

During our conversation the other day about hip hop and its international reach, I immediately was reminded of the popular Italian rapper Fabri Fibra. Many of his videos and songs look and feel like "American rap music". It is obvious that Fabri Fibra is influenced by American hip hop music and it serves to suggest that hip hop can be an outlet of expression for not only cultures that have experienced some sort of diaspora, but also as an outlet to react to particular political and social movements. In Fabri Fibra's song In Italia, he exposes and criticizes the corruption of the Italian government, the prevalence of the mafia, and the often false religiosity of Italians. I've included the link to the video below and a translation of the lyrics so that you may get a better idea of the songs message. I also encourage you to check out some of his other videos that are on YouTube (Bugiardo, Speak English, La Soluzione are also great examples). 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORDWGRlVLJE

lyrics:

There are things nobody will tell you
There are things nobody will give you
You were born and you died here,
you were born and you died here.
Born in the Land of half-truths.

Where do you run away?

In Italy, guns in the cars.
In Italy, Machiavelli and Foscolo.
In Italy, world champions.

I'm in Italy
Welcome

In Italy, go on holiday to the seaside.
In Italy, it's better not to get surgeries.
In Italy, don't go to the hospital.
In Italy, life is beautiful.
In Italy, parties and gala nights.
In Italy, you make deals with the underworld/mafia.
In Italy, your neighbor will shoot you.
In Italy...

There are things nobody will tell you
There are things nobody will give you
You were born and you died here,
you were born and you died here.
Born in the Land of half-truths.

Where do you run away?

In Italy, there is the real Mafia
In Italy the most dangerous are,
In Italy the hookers.
In Italy you eat home-made pasta,
In Italy burglars enter your house,
In Italy you can't find a job,
in Italy, but you kiss the Crucifix.
In Italy the monuments,
In Italy churches with paintings,
In Italy people with feelings, 
In Italy countryside and kidnappings

There are things nobody will tell you
There are things nobody will give you
You were born and you died here,
you were born and you died here.
Born in the Land of half-truths.

Where do you run away?

In Italy, dating girls, 
In Italy photographed pin-ups,

In Italy the blackmailed top models,
In Italy you learn Art,
In Italy the fortune-tellers/gypsies,
In Italy murderers are never caught,
In Italy lost faces and sure votes.

In Italy 

There are things nobody will tell you
There are things nobody will give you
You were born and you died here,
you were born and you died here.
Born in the Land of half-truths.

The new commercial for downy fabric softener, entitled Downy Simple Pleasures, allows the consumer to “feel more expressive with luxurious scents” that are “designed for every side of you”.  Cleanliness has gone to a new level of personalization, where the different smells can now represent your different moods: allure, “a sweet and mysterious scent”, bliss, “a warm, sweet scent”, radiance, “the cool, watery scent”, serenity, “the soft and soothing scent” and dare, “a rich, dynamic scent”.  

It seems as though cleanliness has taken on a new purpose of expressing one’s identity.  The commercial discusses the various scents to express “every woman’s different sides”.  The commercial goes further to state that the consumer, clearly directed to the female consumer, will feel more enhanced in certain feelings: “Feel more calm with downy serenity, feel more daring with downy dare, feel more elegant with downy allure… feel more”.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0e5SGb5GFE

 

http://www.downy.com/en-US/product-line/simple-pleasures.jspx

So this is just weird.. Charmin's Free Bathroom in Times Square?

Talk about Commodity fetishism!

An article: Charmin Makes Bathroom Break Social


This is their blog: http://charminenjoythego.blogspot.com/

Portable!

In class this week, and previous weeks before, we have discussed our nation's obsession with cleanliness. In particular, the product Purell makes is quite popular in our culture. Of course it is necessary to wash our hands and keep them clean, but as we have pointed out, it has become quite out of control today. The image above is Purell's portable hand sanitizer you can attach on your purse, back pack strap, or key chain. I came across these in person multiple times because of friends of mine who own them. Apparently it is not enough to just have access to hand sanitizers in every floor of every building, but to also have it on you all day, everyday. Those germs will never get us now! Right?

The Dangers of Consumerism

When I read Anne McClintock's article I was reminded a lot of the film Wall-E as she discussed the rise of consumerism. As she described on page 507, during the 18th century, "middle-class domestic space became crammed as never before with furniture, clocks, mirrors, paintings, stuffed animals, ornaments, guns and myriad gewgaws and knick nacks" (507). In the Pixar film, the world becomes so overconsumed with this type of consumption, that eventually the earth becomes inhabitable and people have to live in space ships, where ironically, consumption still reigns supreme despite causing the end of civilization. Rather than change their consumer habits, society just moved their habits to space.
When I was thinking of the negative effects that consumption had in the film, I began to think how the world has definitely began to see the negative impact of consumerism, especially with how it has been affecting the environment. Thus, I feel a big result of the consumer society in the past, is the notion of going green today. But ironically, just as in the film, we as a society are not changing our consumer tendencies. Rather, we are using this notion of "going green" to justify consumerism, which in turn, continues to hurt our planet.
For instance, rather than slow down production of SUVs, today, you can buy "hybrid" SUVs. These cars still use a lot of gas, but they are "green," so people assume that they are automatically doing good by the environment when they buy them. In reality, green or not, cars continue to eat away at the finite resource of oil. Likewise, when you go into a store, everything from household cleaners to clothes are "certified green" so we buy them to help the environment. In reality, we are still contributing to environmental harm every time we give into consumerist tendencies to buy, buy, buy, because we are still creating excess. A person may buy a bottle of water that is green "because it uses less plastic," but at the end of the day, many people who buy these bottles of water, don't even recycle them. Rather, they are too lazy and throw them in the trash instead. Thus, they bought the product to "help" the environment, but ended up hurting the environment anyway.
While "going green" in essence should be anti-consumerism, it has thrived based off of the consumer society and this can be a dangerous thing as shown by the film Wall-E where consumer society destroyed the world.

Clean in America

This week in class we talked a lot about Soap and that America is obsessed with the idea about being clean and sterile. Today in our world, everything is made of steal or plastic so that germs do not get on the products we use everyday. But as we talked about Soap I found it interesting that New York City, the biggest City in America is extremely dirty. When we walk down the streets of New York there is trash everywhere and it is definitely no the cleanest place. Foreigner's who usually come to New York to view America may think this is what our nation is composed of. We may stress cleanliness but in reality the streets of our country are dirty and it smells really bad as well. The subway system is terrible also. In countries like Japan and Korea the subway system is highly maintained, clean, and is presentable to the public. If a Korean came to New York and rode the subway's here they would consider the U.S. the supreme nation to be a cheap nation that cannot afford their citizens with a nice subway system.
If you really look into American's are not really clean. We impose and act like we are but if you really look into the realities we are not clean.

BioPower: Mascots on Diets

When I think of raisins, I think of the ultimate healthy snack. I remember recycling dozens of mini cardboard boxes at the preschool I worked everyday. This is what we give the kiddies to help them grow up big and strong.

So when I saw an article questioning Sun Maid Raisin Company's decision to slim down their mascot, I knew right then and there this was one of those biopower issues Foucault talks about. Just like the soap ADs in the McClintock piece, Sun Maid is perpetuating an image the state wants to maintain. Looks like the Sun Maid girl was put on a diet. She is no longer than full figured homely girl we remember. Instead, the state wants people to believe that skinny=healthy. No more fat people in America!