H’s article about ownership in the media is exactly what it says in the title. It overviews several aspects of the ownership in media and outlines a few angles as to why it exists and provides a glimpse into the future if it continues the way it does. They analyze reports from Noam Chompsky (a name reference I actually recognize for once) and      dissect the trend toward more condensed ownership.

While several aspects of capitalistic ownership functions that we have already discussed were mentioned, I thought it was interesting how he answered the question why. More specifically, I thought it was interesting that the media hit or miss rates were a lot more alarming than I thought they’d be. Granted, this was something I’d never really think about, but it was still cool to understand the amount of risk that the media still faces even when it seems like they hold much more power than they immediately give off.

The text then goes to detail the decline in the “golden age” of journalism, pointing out how spin tactics are becoming more prominent – and it really makes you think about the future of reporting. With that regard, he then highlights the potential future of fewer media owners and how the neoliberalistic movement isn’t all that promising as it may seem because of what may happen when corporate ownership runs into areas of public service broadcasting and independently owned companies that won’t budge.

Elavsky, as we’ve touched on in class, compares Live Aid and Live 8 with regards to how the “media spectacle” promotes and shapes the concepts of political activism. He traces the political and corporate foundations on which these causes are formed and framed and shows the effects they had on the public. On one hand, Live Aid was successful because it made a lot of money for a great cause, but failed to promote the emotional involvement that one should invest. On the other hand, Live 8 did nearly the opposite, as it didn’t ask for money but in turn became all about image and sponsorship. This led to hypercommercialism, as we’ve also covered, and witnessed the gray area between commercialism and political activism. This is to no surprise, as I feel like the causes that are sponsored and go viral are the ones that tend to raise awareness more than those that primarily ask for donations. Kony 2012 is the first thing that comes to mind.

Kuehn’s article examines GAP’s (RED) line and its effectiveness – from the literal color to the ad strategies to the bigger picture as a whole (Africa). He points out that there are many stereotypes that were framed as well to fit the guidelines of the marketing plan. The biggest one is practically feeding on the fact that most Americans only view Africa as a country that needs our help and is helpless on its own. Everything, from the tone of the actors speaking in commercials to the quality of the clothing, reflected that. He raises the question about how much charity causes such as this truly mean to a corporation, in a world that is dominated by capitalism and money is the driving force.

This week’s readings and Monday’s lecture were a pleasant topic. I took Comm 110 last semester with Elavsky and Janelle as my TA so I was pretty aware of the things we talked about in class. I think that I took a lot more away from our lecture on Monday though about this week’s topic of Cultural Industries.

Elavsky brings up the Live Aid and Live 8 concerts. Looking back to when I was younger and these concerts happened, I only really remember Live 8 happening. I believe it was when I was in middle school. On one hand, Elavsky brings up the fact that Live Aid was a concert to help Ethiopia by taking monetary donations. On the other hand, Live 8 was a concert to help Africans suffering from HIV. The only difference was that Live 8 wasn’t asking for money. They were trying to make a change in the longrun. They also used celebrity endorsements. Live 8 was much more successful in their goal – making a difference. They didn’t care about the money, they wanted to spread the awareness because that’s stronger than anything. In regards to Live Aid, it wasn’t making a spark. Donors probably just felt the need to donate because they felt guilty and probably thought it was their civil duty to make a donation but they didn’t do anything after that. Once they made their donation, their job was done. Using celebrities of all different ages, demographics, styles and backgrounds brought in a huge audience. “We don’t want your money, we wan’t your voice” was their slogan which I believe is extremely effective in reaching their goal.

In the article by Hesmondhaulgh, he talks about ownership in the media and popular culture. I’m not going to focus much of this post on that reading because I thought it was pretty straightforward. I think the main premise of the article was about how everyone benefits when the government doesn’t get involved in the business affairs of others.

Lastly, the article “Compassionate Consumerism” and the discussion we had on it in class was very interesting to me. I loved how Keuhn brought up the fact that companies are using consumerism and our naivety to their advantage to make it seem like they’re being so charitable (which they very well might be but do we actually know what our money is going to?) by doing campaigns such as the (RED) campaign by GAP. One thing we pointed in class was that they also used celebrity endorsers but the product that they were putting out there that helped the charity didn’t look anything like their average product they put on the market. They’re just using our inability to really understand whether or not we’re buying this clothing because we want to make a difference or because we like to spend money and buy material items.

All three of the readings this week had something interesting to inform me about. However, I think, “Ownership is only part of the media picture,” by David Hesmondhaulgh, was the one reading the got my mind racing the most. First off, you can easily tell Hesmondhaulgh is from the United Kingdom by his style of writing. Words like ‘compaine’ and ‘organisations’ kept popping up red on my Microsoft word document as a spelling mistake. Hesmondhaulgh touched on a number of topics, mostly tied into ownership, even though his article was only two and a half page long. The one section that stuck out to me the most was his two paragraphs on ‘The decline of journalism?’ The obvious reason is become I’m going into the field of journalism, so when you see a title like that it immediately catches the eye. The second reason is an ironic one. I haven’t been at class this week because I’m attending a broadcasting convention in Las Vegas. I’ve attended a number of interesting sessions during my time here, but there was one session named “An Outgrown Paradigm: Are the Core News Values of Yesterday Still Applicable in or Digital Age? “ that directly tied into this notion of poor journalism. Just like Hesmondhaulgh states in his writing, the discussion at this session was what is ‘real’ news nowadays, how the difference between news and opinion has become convoluted and how 90% of news is through 5 corporations. Ownership.

The article “Compassionate Consumerism,” by Kuehn, was based on a research question: “What are the social and cultural implications of using the sale of commodity goods to raise awareness for social issues.” Kuehn specifically researched the Gap RED. Kuehn mentioned that the Gap used this initiative to repair its image, which is pretty sick in my opinion. When I was younger my mom boycotted the Gap, Old Navy and Banana Republic for the reasons outlined by the author and also because she heard they supported destroying the rainforest. I was young and never really researched it to see if my mom was right, but it looks like she was. Ultimately if millions of dollars are helping people in need in Africa that is a good thing. However, the fact that it takes consumerism to do this is kind of sad and counterproductive.

Lastly, Michael Elavsky’s article “United as ONE,” talked about the history of music and politics and specifically the concerts for Live Aid and Live 8. Even though these organizations tried to get people emotionally involved they didn’t really pan out. I think music can be a great way to raise awareness since it’s usually apart of our everyday life. Furthermore, there are a number of artists that try to give back through benefits concerts. I think this strategy can be effective if done correctly.

The three readings for this week were all interesting in their own way. Each reading taught me something different, and I wasn’t upset that we had to read three articles. The first article “United as One”, written by Elavsky discussed the music charity projects such as Live Aid and Live 8, and how this music was meant to bring social or political awareness. Interestingly, Elavsky mentions how Live Aid raised 75 million dollars in financial support for the harsh famine in Ethiopia; however this global concert did not spark any worldwide movement to stop this problem. Live 8 was different than Live Aid because it emphasized a more political awareness rather than a humanitarian approach. This concert was used more to tell people about the problems, rather than just raising money to solve the problems. I thought that both concerts were/are a great idea; it is just a shame that they were short-lived. The second reading, “Ownership is Only Part of the Media Picture” by Hesmondhalgh explained the two thoughts/opinions on media ownership. Hesmondhalgh discusses that one opinion on the matter is that media monopoly is not beneficial towards our democracy, while the other opinion was that companies that deal with media are the “servants of audiences” through the profit system. This article emphasizes how media journalism and its intent to be truthful and loyal have been on a steady decline. Hesmondhalgh explains that due to commercialism, true journalism has been diminished. The last article “Compassionate Consumerism” was my favorite reading of the three. Author Kuehn describes the effort by the company Gap to raise money in support of the AIDS disease in Africa. Gap had a “RED” campaign in which consumer’s money that was spent on certain commodities would then go to support this disease. Just like the two concerts Live 8 and Live Aid, celebrities were used to promote this campaign and to get more people buying. People ended up spending money on these more expensive items so that they can feel better about their day. But was Gap actually sending all of the money that they said they would? I thought it was interesting, and not surprising to read that Kuehn explained how this campaign was more a way to make profit for Gap then to help out Africa. It is annoying, but that’s the way these types of corporations work, and unfortunately, I was not surprised to read that of course there was an ulterior motive other than helping out Africa. It is always about the money.