# data[].attributes.body
In this course I would like to learn more in depth about media theories than I previously have in communications courses. I generally am more inclined to intersectional social issues in the society and have found feminist theory very interesting. For that reason I most looking forward to Critical Race theory and Feminist Media Theory because they pertain closesly to issues I care about. Professor Keller and her achievements also excite me for this class because of her education on these topics and am excited to learn a lot from her.

# data[].attributes.body
Engstrom’s main argument in her article Unraveling the Knot, focuses on how wedding media, such as corporations like The Knot, enforce hegemonic ideals of femininity and how weddings are inevitably tied to ideals of wealth. The Knot’s use of multiple mediums “forwards a hegemony which requires ‘real women’ to be able to play two essential roles. .”[1] The two roles that are expected of women in weddings are as a physical object, in which standards of beauty and consumerism are linked directly to the value of the bride and the couple’s relationship, and as the superbride, in which women are expected to stress over every detail and the wedding’s success is credited to the bride’s hard work and taste-level defined by wedding media like The Knot. In regard to brides as a physical object, Engstrom details how much of the wedding media focuses not on the bride but on the dress, she wears [the wrapping].[2] This also extends to the hegemonic ideal of beauty is pain, and how women are expected to put themselves in uncomfortable states or even lose weight in order to achieve a certain standard of beauty. In regard to the role as a superbride, this propose the hegemonic ideal Engstrom argues the responsibility is on the bride and details of the wedding are ‘decidedly feminine’[3]. Furthermore, the wedding programs that Engstrom investigates, “instills the notion that regardless of socioeconomic status, a wedding requires some degree of effort that involves additional work, time and money”[4]. This is to achieve a level of elegance of a class that is assumed to be higher the one you are currently in.

Political Economy is an important approach towards Engstrom’s research because it provides a motive as to why corporations like The Knot propose specific ideas for individuals. As Enstrom argues, “The Knot creates an image of perfection that one can achieve through the purchasing of the corrects items”.[5] With this hegemonic ideal promoted on individuals, this in turn, discredits wedding styles that counter the ‘assumed’ wedding formula. Going against this wedding formula would create losses for benefactors of The Knot. This perfect wedding ideal imposed on individuals also links back to the previous paragraph, where a wedding is tied to achieving a status of a higher social class just for the night, an illusion in itself.[6] Thus, a political economy approach shows more evidentiary support to direct a motive for promoting hegemony in wedding media.

The main take-away from this article is that the wedding industry is on the surface very shallow and only seems to focus on material possessions, but it is far more complex than that. Following Engstrom’s political economy approach I was able to see the hegemonic ideals enforced on society and how synergistic corporations, like The Knot, do this. The media ties to the books, which ties to the television show, and then loop back around to the blog, and so on. This cycle reinforces hegemonic ideals that in order for women to be fulfilled, they must follow a formula in which they spend a certain amount to achieve a fantasy of material spectacle. This belief is only instilled in women, as weddings are in the female sphere. Men are able to hold value through their education, their career, and achievements in the public sphere. Even modern women who have successful corporate careers are expected to ‘have it all’ with a perfect wedding, while this sentiment does not apply the same to men.

[1] Erika Engstrom, “Political Economy and Cultural Hegemony in Wedding Media,” Journal of Communication Inquiry 32, no. 1 (Janurary 2008): 60-82. [2] Engstrom, "Political Economy and Cultural Hegemony in Wedding Media", 60-82. [3] Engstrom, "Political Economy and Cultural Hegemony in Wedding Media", 60-82. [4] Engstrom, "Political Economy and Cultural Hegemony in Wedding Media", 60-82. [5] Engstrom, "Political Economy and Cultural Hegemony in Wedding Media", 60-82. [6] Engstrom, "Political Economy and Cultural Hegemony in Wedding Media", 60-82.

# data[].attributes.body
The Frankfurt School was made up of scholars in which they based their arguments in Marxist beliefs and therefore, focused on a political-economy analysis. After reading through Ross’s piece The Frankfurt School Knew Trump was Coming, it is clear the main argument is that by following the Frankfurt School’s rationality the presidential election was decided by the industry controlling mass culture. Trump, just like Hitler, was Time Person of the Year after the 2016 election. This honour is bestowed to the person who holds the most relevance in print media and essentially has the most articles published and sold on their name. Whether it was criticism or praise the reality TV star turned president held consumer’s attention, something that is highly valued in this new space of media. Thus, the news industry gained more from Trump as a presidential candidate than they would have with Clinton. This could also be dissected further in the ideals of society and the patriarchal implications of how the industry found it preferable to put an unqualified man up on a pedestal rather than a qualified woman for a position of power.

Ross writes, “Of the clouds and shadows that hung-over Clinton in the press, the darkest, perhaps, was the prospect of boredom.”[1]

What Ross means by this is no matter how much Trump’s rhetoric was polarizing and discriminatory, his image was still glamorized in the media. This in comparison to Clinton who was running a classic political campaign as past Secretary of the State was not as appealing to consumers according to the culture industry. This appeal is what Ross rationalizes, “The mechanism by which people support a political program ‘largely incompatible with their own rational self-interest,’”[2] The power of mass culture as the Frankfurt School argues is its distracting quality and its push to hegemonic ideals.[3] Ross’s argument relates to the Frankfurt School because his argument is embedded in Adorno and his beliefs. Ross just further implements the arguments of the Frankfurt School and their argument of mass culture by providing a current example of it.

[1] Alex Ross, “The Frankfurt School Knew Trump was Coming,” The New Yorker, December 5, 2016, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-frankfurt-school-knew-trump-was-coming. [2] Ross, "The Frankfurt School Knew Trump was Coming." [3] Brett Mills & David M. Barlow, "The Frankfurt School," in Reading Media Theory: Thinkers, Approaches & Context. (Abingdon & New: Routleddge, 2013), 84-102.

# data[].attributes.body
In Kelly’s article, More Than Stans: Stop Dismissing the K-Pop Fandom’s Political Power, she details how the K-pop fans have contributed to the Black Lives Matter protest online after murder of George Floyd by a Dallas police officer. While the Black Lives Matter movement has grown attention in recent years, it held great prominence this year on and offline. Kelly notes the creative way in which K-pop fans infiltrated a Dallas Police Department app, in which the users were to submit photo and video tips of possible crimes. Here K-pop flooded the app with fancams-  video and image compilations of famous K-pop idols.[1] The hashtag #whitelivesmatter lost control by K-pop fans using the same method. The key component of cultural studies that is exemplified through this online activism is the use of what Hall denotes as the oppositional code. The oppositional code is when an individual, “detotalizes the message in the preferred code in order to retotalize the message within some alternative framework of reference”[2]. In Kelly’s example, the Dallas Police Department wanted images and videos of people committing crimes as a way to incarcerate more protestors as tensions rose and the use of fancams by K-pop fans goes against this intended use.

Another recent example of fan activism is the boycotting of the release of the live-action Mulan movie on Disney plus and other streaming services. This activism was warranted for different reasons. The first being that the representation on screen did not reflect the representation behind the scenes.[3] Representation of people of color is currently shifting in the media space and is becoming part of the dominant code in recent times. The new live-action film garnered positive attention at first for this reason. However, while the film represented Chinese people on screen there was no influence by people of color behind the camera. The movie was written and directed by white people and many fans felt Mulan did not deserve to be put up on a pedestal for their inclusion of people of color. The film also lost support by fans after leading actress Liu Yifei shared a statement supporting the government of China against the Honk Kong protests.[4] Months of civil unrest in Hong Kong last year were against the implementation of extradition from Hong Kong to mainland China.[5]  The actress being outspoken in her support to the Hong Kong police created a loss for the film with an initial boycott. This grew when fans saw in the credits the use of actual Chinese locations in the movie, specifically the Xinjiang province, where the government is currently oppressing the Uyghur population.[6] The use of internment camps is an example of a current day genocide in which this marginalized population is being tortured and are being forcibly sterilized because of their belief system. This boycott by many fans resulted in the movie making $64.4 million while their budget was $200 million creating a 68% deficit for Disney.

[1] Emma Kelly, “Stop Dismissing the K-pop Fandom’s Political Power,” Bitch Media, June 11, 2020, https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/k-pop-fandom-political-force. [2] Brett Mills & David M. Barlow, "The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies," in Reading Media Theory: Thinkers, Approaches & Context. (Abingdon & New: Routleddge, 2013), 225-259. [3] "Mulan (2020) Cast and production information," IMDB, accessed October 13, 2020 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4566758/. [4] "Mulan: Why Disney's latest reboot is facing boycott calls" BBC News,  September 4, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-54024810. [5] "Mulan: Why Disney's latest reboot is facing boycott calls" BBC News,  September 4, 2020. [6] "Disney criticised for filming in China's Xinjang province," BBC News, September 7, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-54064654.

# data[].attributes.body
In regard to the media, I consumed this week, I have chosen the following image that I found on Tumblr, that pictures popular artist Lizzo next to text from an interview with Vogue Magazine.
Ferdinand categorizes language into two sections the ‘signifier’ and the ‘signified’.[1] Hypothetically, the word for ‘pencil’ creates the concept of the graphite-tip writing tool generally used on paper. In this example, the word is the signifier, and the concept is the signified. A sign is made up of these two components. There are many signs in the picture above. First, Lizzo is in a bright light pink dress with an intricate long skirt, long nails, and jewelry in front of a grey backdrop. To the right is a quote from her interview in bold white letters, “I think it’s lazy for me to just say I’m body positive at this point. It’s easy. I would like to be body-normative. I want to normalize my body. And not just be like, ‘Ooh, look at this cool movement. Being fat is body positive.’ No, being fat is normal.” Relying on Roland Barthes, the denotation of this image is that Vogue as a highly influential fashion magazine, promotes women of color in their expression as fat women in fashion. At this first level of signification, the quote always argues that body positivity isn’t just about thinking of fat women as beautiful, but that they are not anomalies and are normal. The connotation of this image shows representation of Lizzo, who is a plus-size, black, female entertainer and her inclusion in Vogue shows that their inclusivity in fashion. This can be further unpacked, Vogue is clearly trying to align itself with modern views by showcasing Lizzo, in this image. It is different than other magazines who focus exclusively on how to lose 10lbs quickly and instead empower women. Here the Lizzo photoshoot and interview that is featured in the Vogue magazine is commodified.  However, Lizzo highly performs femininity and plays the narrative of that plus-size women have of the jolly fat lady. Furthermore, Lizzo's positive is a counternarrative that is often placed on black women which is the angry black woman. Lizzo performs the ideal of femininity and while she isn’t thin, she still has long acrylics, makeup, and her hair is sleek in a bun, not in a more ‘black hairstyle’ like braids or an afro. The accents of the skirt on the dress jut out dramatically to create the illusion of an hourglass figure and amplify the size that Lizzo holds. Thus, as a plus size woman of color Lizzo is celebrated conveniently when she is performing femininity to a certain ideal.  Thus, as a plus size woman of color Lizzo is celebrated conveniently when she is performing femininity to a certain ideal. The fashion industry is a classist institution through which hegemonic ideals are maintained and the inclusion of Lizzo in this industry shows progress towards supporting women of all shapes, but representation is still limited if that.

[1] John Storey, “6 Structuralism and post-structuralism,” in Cultural Theory and Popular Culture 8 th Edition (Abingdon & New York: Routledge, 2018), 116-131.

# data[].attributes.body
According to Ouellette and Hay, reality television, “governs less through the dissemination of ideology than through the enactment of participatory games and lifestyle tutorials that guide, test, and supposedly enhance subject’s capacity to play an active role in shaping uncertain outcomes- to govern themselves through freedom, not control ….”[1] In relation to governmentality, reality television works in the same way because institutions place responsibility on the individual for their shortcomings rather than the institutions themselves who could provide assistance. This responsibility is placed in their pursuit of what is an illusion of freedom because there is only one hegemonic ideal to strive towards. This is also dictated by the idea of a ‘reinvented state of welfare’ and, “relies on a combination of overt and indirect strategies to produce citizens who are self-sufficient as well as self-governing.”[2] In the Ouellette and Hay article, they focus on weight loss programs in which the hegemonic ideal is that thinness is equated to health. Thus, not being thin automatically places the blame on any overweight person themselves and not the institutions like government who can mandate pricing of healthier food to remain at a relatively lower costs, than food with higher fat, higher sugar, and higher caloric value. Staying thin can also be determined by one’s socio-economic status because of the lack of time people in lower-income positions have to cook healthier alternatives or exercise.

The media text that illustrates the first Ouellette and Hay quote is TLC’s show What Not to Wear, who feature Stacy London and Clinton Kelly. The show often features a woman who has been nominated by their friends or family. The style experts give a background of the participant and their life and the main issues with their clothing, then they surprise the participants and go through a week-long process in which they can buy a new wardrobe for $5,000 but must follow the rules of the style experts. The show exemplifies the quote above as it provides the audience a tutorial as to how to dress properly and “what not to wear” with explanations by style experts as to why specific clothing is not appropriate for people. Throughout the episode the participant is transformed and is generally shown to have an increased confidence and while they are hesitant by the end of the process, they are happier than they were before. This further instills to the audience that in order to be empowered and be confident in yourself that you must dress the way the proper way and by following the rules of the show, the responsibility is on the individual.

Social media is an example of governmentality as behaviors that do not receive approval through general consensus are labelled as ‘cancelled’ by different communities. The issue with governmentality on social media is that individuals can be cancelled for minor offenses, but still face the same consequences or even more outlash than someone who has committed a major offence. An example of this is when users on the app TikTok ‘cancel’ specific influencers with large followings when they have gone against the social norms. This can include serious issues such as, when influencers have inappropriate behavior towards minors or saying the n-word when the influencer is not black. However, this cancellation can also extend to influencers for vomiting when trying to eat snails and wanting to achieve a 100 million follower milestone. [3] These ‘cancellations’ of these influencers for their incorrect behavior is an example of governmentality because the social media platforms in which these users grew a large following do not participate, the responsibility to self-govern is instilled in the other users who try to de-platform these problematic influencers. While it is important to de-platform individuals for their toxic behavior in grooming minors, especially on an app dominated with a younger demographic, this sentiment should not be equated to minor offences, if they can even be categorized as that.

[1]   Laurie Oullete & James Hay, “Makeover television, governmentality and the good citizen,” Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 22:4, 471-484. https://doi.org/10.1080/10304310801982930.  [2] Ouellette & Hay, "Makeover television, govnernmentality and the good citizen," 474. [3] Ellissa Bain, “Why are the D’amelio’s ‘cancelled’? Charli and Dixie under fire following dinner party video!” HITC, November 19, 2020, https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/11/19/damelios-cancelled/.

# data[].attributes.body
The first concept, I found the most important in this week is the idea of the male gaze. In Representing Gender, Mulvey dictates the male gaze as the passive male spectator role the audience is assumed to view media through.[1] Generally, in this practice women are fragmented and dissected as only body parts and have very minimal role in action toward the storyline.[2] Women are objectified and in extreme cases serve as much purpose as a lamp. I found this concept the most important to retain from the reading as the male gaze has deeper connotations in society because everyone who is not a heterosexual cis male must assume a different role when viewing media and thus, develop negotiated code.[3] Furthermore, the media production industry is largely male dominated. It is through this objectification of women and large male industry that toxic oppressive behavior can easily occur as we saw with the #metoo movement which targeted sexual assault in Hollywood. Men like Harvey Weinstein were able to abuse their power with many in Hollywood being aware of the behavior and not doing anything about it.

The second most important concept of this week is popular feminism. In this situation, the complexities of feminism are commodified to a digestible version for the general public and women can be exploited and empowered simultaneously.[4] Women are exploited by popular feminism catering to the ‘aesthetic’ of being a feminist by creating merchandise for feminism and being a ‘girl boss’ with badges, stickers, mugs, etc. At the same time, these women are empowered because are to be confident in themselves and these products signify taking a stance in regard to human rights as woman. This is important because often misogyny is disguised through popular feminism as women are expected to hold more responsibilities in the workforce while still performing femininity in their standards of beauty and the wage gap being present.

These two concepts help us understand the representation of gender in media culture, as the male gaze is the traditional way in which women are portrayed in media yet in the past couple decades there has been a shift in a digestible empowerment. Some portrayals of women also take on a postfeminist viewpoint in which the equality for women in the public sphere has already been achieved and is shown through the use of successful women in their profession. An example of this being, Scandal and Sex and the City. In both of these cases, leading women are empowered in their careers, yet they still are complicit in the patriarchal ideals of finding love and fulfillment in a man and conform to female standards of beauty. A more recent example of this being the Netflix show, Emily in Paris, in which a white, thin, beautiful Lily Collins plays a successful marketing executive Emily Cooper who finds newfound recognition as a social media influencer. However, her issues are still tied to the hegemonic ideas of the patriarchy as her female boss being highly competitive with Emily with men and professionally, and Emily ultimately falling in love with her friend’s boyfriend. Here the influence of the male gaze seep into popular feminism and the representation of women in media.

[1] Alison Harvey, “Representing Gender,” in Feminist Media Studies, (Wiley, 2019), 58-83. [2] Harvey, “Representing Gender,” 58-83.  [3] Brett Mills & David M. Barlow, "The Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies," in Reading Media Theory: Thinkers, Approaches & Context. (Abingdon & New: Routleddge, 2013), 225-259. [4] Sarah Banet-Weiser, "Popular misognyny: a zeitgeist," Culture Digitally, January 21, 2015, https://culturedigitally.org/2015/01/popular-misogyny-a-zeitgeist/.

# data[].attributes.body
Disclosure (2020) is a documentary that showcases many trans individuals who contribute to the entertainment industry, in which they dissect from their social location the issues with trans representation in media. From this documentary I learned that trans people in the U.S. are 3 times more likely to be unemployed because of the lack of rights they have in regard to job discrimination.[1] As a result of this unemployment, trans people are more likely to participate in sex work and often, this stereotype is represented in the media. Further, enforcing this notion that trans people are sexual vagrants. Another interesting fact I learned is that 80% of Americans don’t know a trans person.[2] That is why representation of trans people is so pertinent because it is the only visibility that trans people will have on cis people and more importantly on trans people who may not have come to terms with themselves. Personally, in my life as a 21-year-old gay man I’ve only ever met 2 out trans people who were in their beginning stages of their transition. I was acquaintances, at most, with both of them and thus even my limited experience with trans people in real life is greater than those of 80% of Americans. Lastly, I learned how selfish towards cis people the idea of disclosure is.[3] This idea is represented in film often that a) something needs to be disclosed and b) that not disclosing this information is betrayal to the cis person. This idea of disclosure is cis normative and does not take into account the safety and well-being of the trans person. As a gay man I could kind of relate to this experience, but I also believe the tides have changed because gay representation, especially white feminine gay male representation, is present in the media we consume, thus often people assume I am gay and there is no need to come out.

The two most compelling arguments I felt from this documentary were the critical lens developed by individuals who are part of marginalized communities, and why trans representation leads to less death. The first argument is that media is catered to men and thus when you don’t follow that perspective you develop a critical lens to consume media because images on your screen are not your life. This ties back to Harvey and the idea of the passive male gaze individuals are expected to view media from.[4] Much like women, trans people also have stereotypes enforced on them, that they are sexual perverted, or they are psychopathic serial killers.[5] From Disclosure’s first argument, Harvey argues the same, “The oppositional gaze reminds us that audiences can develop strategies resistance and derive pleasure from the act of undermining dominant messages, by engaging with them and therefore resisting their power.”[6] The second argument Disclosure poses is why trans representation leads to less disproportionate towards trans people. As we see throughout the film, most of the representation of trans women in film is done by cis men. This promotes the narrative that trans women are not women and are just cis men with really good hair and makeup. When you see trans actors, like Laverne Cox, who looks just as glamorous off-screen as she does on-screen it combats this greater narrative. This argument relates to Harvey’s concept of symbolic annihilation. Just as the representation of women is often limited within stereotypes or is generally missing in media, this symbolic annihilation is amplified even more so towards trans people.[7]

[1] Disclosure, directed by Sam Feder (2020: Bow & Arrow/Netflix, 2020) https://www.netflix.com/watch/81284247?trackId=13752289&tctx=0%2C0%2C1063259b1c770aa3e319db23235e84b9cd3f899a%3A86cf472bafdbdb9b380633dfa80222debb7ef2bc%2C1063259b1c770aa3e319db23235e84b9cd3f899a%3A86cf472bafdbdb9b380633dfa80222debb7ef2bc%2C%2C.[2] Disclosure, Feder, 2020 Netflix. [3] Disclosure, Feder, 2020 Netflix.[4] Alison Harvey, “Representing Gender,” in Feminist Media Studies, (Wiley, 2019), 58-83. [5] Disclosure, Feder, 2020 Netflix.[6] Harvey, “Representing Gender,” 58-83. [7] Harvey, “Representing Gender,” 58-83.

# data[].attributes.body
The main argument in Bell Hooks, Eating the Other, is to acknowledge cultural appropriation for what it is and taking into account the historical context and oppression that people of color have gone through when their culture is essentially stolen from them as a pop culture trend. As Hooks dictates, “Within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture”[1] An example of ‘eating the Other’ this is the current popularization of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) on social media by black users and then used by younger white social media users and referenced as ‘gen z language’. To ‘eat the Other’ is to commodify the culture of people of color and market it as something new that the white mainstream can assume as a new facet of the status quo. Through this process as Hooks argues, “the desires for the “primitive” or fantasies about the Other can be continually exploited, and that such exploitation will occur in a manner that reinscribed and maintains the status quo.”[2] Essentially the sexualization and desire for this larger narrative of the ‘exotic’ Other is perpetuated by commodity culture and adopted by white counterparts. Through this process the status quo of the Other is enforced and maintains power for white people.

“The contemporary crises of identity in the West, especially as experienced by white youth, are eased when the “primitive” is recouped via a focus on diversity and pluralism which suggests the Other can provide life-sustaining alternatives.”[3] This quote stood out to me the most because of my journey to viewing my white privilege in society. As an immigrant from Venezuela who grew up in Alberta, I always felt the need to distance myself from white Canadians arguing that I actually have culture. The homogeneity of white Albertans doesn’t value culture in the same way that I do, yet I also benefit by blending in. Going to a predominantly white high school in Calgary amplified the need to differentiate myself. However, I emphasize Latino people can be a variety of shades and just because I have a slight tan doesn’t define me as a person of color and I will never be oppressed in the same way. As a white- passing immigrant, I’m not told to go back to my country for speaking Spanish in public, if anything people find it an ‘exotic side’ of my identity. This treatment is not extended to people of color, my dad who is brown and has a thicker accent is often assumed that he is an immigrant, from the Middle East, while my blonde white mother who also has an accent is assumed to be from Quebec or France. The double standard as to whose culture is valued is quickly noticeable from this experience.

[1] Bell Hooks, "Eating the Other: Desries and resistance" in Black Looks: Race and Representation. (Boston: South End Press, 1992), 21-39.  [2] Hooks, "Eating the Other," 21-39 [3] Hooks, "Eating the Other," 21-39

# data[].attributes.body
Based on the readings for this week is that with Black Lives Matter Activism and its trajectory that it’s had, presents the opportunity to show how corrupt the institution of police are and to ultimately, defund the police while replenishing community services in order to help lower income individuals who may fall prey incarceration. In Jackson, et al., #BlackLiveMatter was used in 5 ways: to garner solidarity and approval, to reference police violence, to mention logistical tactics, to focus on Ferguson, and to express countermovement sentiment.[1] As we have seen from the 2020 protests there is large solidarity in the movement across the world and awareness of police violence is present and this year has marked a larger focus on countermovement sentiment shifting from not just the indictment of individual officers but extending to the restructuring of police. The limitations of Black Lives Matter Activism are present from the structure of the social media websites. This is supported in The Daily’s Podcast, How Facebook is Undermining ‘Black Lives Matter’, as Facebook publicly supports Black Lives Matter (BLM), yet Zuckerberg makes the Facebook environment a hospitable space for anti-BLM values where the top ten stories of the day are 9 or 8 are predominated by right-wing media.[2] This distinction is also apparent in the way Twitter placed a warning label of Donald Trump’s tweet where he states, “… when the looting starts, the shooting stars,” as inciting violence and didn’t allow it to be retweeted. This same statement was posted on Facebook, yet nothing was enacted by this platform.[3] Another limitation is the rise of prominence of what Jackson defines as, “stokers, who hold fast to the ideological polarization of their preferred hashtag and often shifted to more extreme versions.”[4] However, ‘brokers’ clarify misunderstandings and provide additional informational content. [5]

The biggest take-away from this week’s content is that in order for activism in regard to BLM to become more effective online, social media platforms and search engines need to restructure the way information is presented to users.[6] From Noble’s article the key question is placed, “Since we are so reliant on search engines for providing trusted information shouldn’t we question the ways in which ‘information’ is offered up to the highest bidder that can buy the search term and portray it in any way they want?”[7] While in Noble’s article she focuses on the search engines and how they misrepresent women of color, the same argument can be extended to the algorithms that cater information to users on social media platforms. I credit these social media companies and their algorithms with polarizing users because of the trusting nature users have to information they consume. If people are only presented one viewpoint of a bipartisan issue, like a pandemic that discredits social distancing, masks and vaccines, these users will have a harder time following a government mandate. This is because social media is a form of an echo chamber in which similar viewpoints are the only ones presented and perspective to the general consensus is lost.

[1] Sarah Jackson, Moya Bailey, and Brooke Foucault Welles, "From #Ferguson to #FalconHeights: The Networked Case for Black Lives," in #Hashtag Activism: Networks of Race and Gender Justice. (The MIT Press: Cambridge, 2020), 123-152. [2] Michael Barbaro and Kevin Roose "How Facebook is Undermining ‘Black Lives Matter,'" June 22, 2020, in The Daily, produced by The New York Times, podcast, Mp3 audio, 0:28:50, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/22/podcasts/the-daily/facebook-twitter-black-lives-matter-trump.html." [3] Barbaro and Roose, "How Facebook is Undermining ‘Black Lives Matter,’" 0:28:50. [4] Jackson, et al., "From #Ferguson to #FalconHeights: The Networked Case for Black Lives," 123-152. [5] Jackson, et al., "From #Ferguson to #FalconHeights: The Networked Case for Black," 123-152. [6] Barbaro and Roose, "How Facebook is Undermining ‘Black Lives Matter'," 0:28:50. [7] Safiya Noble, "Missed Connections: What Search Engines Say About Women" Bitch Media, Spring 2012, 36-41.

# data[].attributes.body
The most compelling thing I learned in this course is the political-economy approach in order to dissect media. It is shocking to see how corporate synergy which is often hailed as one of the advents of business holds sinister implications. Using this approach, the consumption of media is tied to the capital and who benefits from those media productions. In Engstrom’s political economy approach she exemplifies the monetary ties The Knot has in regard to the wedding media it creates.[1] This wedding media further maintains homogeneity in society. However, the items from this wedding media can are simply organized on The Knot website with links to purchase these products or services. The Knot, therefore, makes many off the consumer watching and doubles down when that same viewer uses different mediums by the same company. [2]

I believe the concept of hegemony while something I was generally familiar with from a previous class, Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument of the culture industry and the authentic and inauthentic culture changed the way I perceived media. Horkheimer and Adorno argue, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness… Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together.” [3] After going through this reading, it reminded me how much social media has changed, and how a free platform is not free when the influencers you look towards for inspiration are constantly bombarding you with sponsored posts. Influencers and bloggers no matter what their branding is can be categorized even to the same items. The Instagram page, shitbloggerspost, exemplifies how the same products and aesthetic are posted by multiple bloggers that range from tens of thousands to a million followers on Instagram. All these influencers grew large following for different reasons, yet our culture is infiltrated with so much hegemony and need to conform that they all inadvertently curate the same products, all to profit off the users who follow them.

I would argue that Harvey’s, Representing Gender, holds the greatest importance in the course because it explains many concepts in relation to representing women in media. These concepts include tokenism, othering, stereo/countertypes, importance of representation, symbolic annihilation, the male gaze, feminine beauty, and post-feminism.[4] I based a lot of my semiotic analysis on this reading and although it is a longer read it defines and explains so many concepts and as a man it made me even more aware than I already was of the privilege I have. I also believe this reading holds greater significance because it easily ties back to critical media studies and its focus on media and its relation to society and power. Core concepts like hegemony, governmentality, cultural studies, semiotics, discursive frameworks and critical race theory can all also be related back to this reading because of the depth it carries and extends into real life. After finishing this course, I will approach media differently by adopting a more critical lens as to why certain people and products are curated and promoted towards me and what that says about me and the values I hold. In this time, social media can be very polarizing with the pandemic because of the lack of contact people have with the outside world at the moment. This lack of contact I believe can create a false perception of reality. Thus, I will be more aware of who I am following, and ask myself do they represent the world around me or have just I curated a feed of conventionally attractive thin white people and fallen prey to the hegemonic ideals of society?

[1] Erika Engstrom, “Political Economy and Cultural Hegemony in Wedding Media,” Journal of Communication Inquiry 32, no. 1 (Janurary 2008): 60-82. [2] Engstrom, “Political Economy and Cultural Hegemony in Wedding Media,” 60-82. [3] Brett Mills & David M. Barlow, "The Frankfurt School," in Reading Media Theory: Thinkers, Approaches & Context. (Abingdon & New: Routleddge, 2013), 84-102. [4] Alison Harvey, “Representing Gender,” in Feminist Media Studies, (Wiley, 2019), 58-83.