"Go Fun Yourself", etc.

Like some of the other posters on this blog, to me one of the most interestingly obvious contrasts between the attitudes of Brits and Americans as a whole towards certain media is the reception of suggestive content. Overt sexuality and profanity still isn't accepted as a cultural norm (unlike Amsterdam, where I spent a weekend getting unintentionally exposed to LOTS of things I had never seen floating around unassumingly in broad daylight), but it seems like the use of "subtle" innuendos is a lot less subtle and a lot less controlled than it would be back in the States.

On one daytrip into London, I happened to look out the window as a double decker bus drove by. A seemingly innocuous ad for some type of ice cream was plastered across the side... at least it seemed innocuous until I read the huge text emblazoned underneath the brand name. I'm not 100 percent sure what the promotion with the ice cream itself was (I think they were calling attention to a new chocolate cone or something along those lines) but I definitely remember the tagline- "On top is still great, but now the bottom is even better". Obviously they were making comments about the normal part of the ice cream and the new type of cone, but there were definitely identifiable provocative undertones. When I looked it up later it was apparently part of Wall's Ice Cream's "Goodbye Serious" ad campaign.

On another trip, I saw a set of billboards with matching car advertisements for Toyota in different colors. The design was really cute and simplistic, which ended up contrastingly greatly with the way I first read the tagline. On second glance I realized that the signs said "go fun yourself" instead of what I originally read, but it was kind of shocking to me how nearly explicit and how direct of a reference it was. There was no question as to what thought the wordplay was meant to elicit, and I couldn't obvious and visible the ads were to the public.

The content displayed to the masses here in Britain, especially that I've seen in advertising, seems to be the kind that would cause huge amounts of controversy in the US, especially with parents. Here, however, it's mere presence makes it seem as if it's to be taken as nothing but good-natured humor. Maybe adults assume the references will go over the heads of children, or maybe they're less protective in the ways that American adults are. Either way, although they may have made my mouth drop, I won't be forgetting these ads anytime soon, so I guess they've done their jobs.

"That Song Says WHAT Over Here?"

In my previous blog post I discussed language barriers due to slang phrases and various uses of words. I'd like to continue with cultural differences but this time with overall media content. 

America as a whole tends to have the stigma of being liberal and rather loose, while the British are stereotyped as posh, snobby and refined. In actuality, the roles are reversed when it comes to the content put out by the media. In addition to large amounts of PDA, Europeans are also more accepting of cursing and other language we would find inappropriate. While in the bus driving toward our excursion on Thursday the BBC radio station was playing. When a song by a British group that is also popular in the US came on, I was surprised to hear one of the essential words in the chorus changed from the ones I was familiar with. The song always had sexual implications, but this change made it blatantly obvious. It was also played during the morning commune when children are likely to hear it before school, so it was not child censored like most stations in the US. It's interesting to see that they don't worry about exposing kids to particular media or seem to think that the messages they contain will alter their thoughts.

Let's not forget about the British tabloids. Even the reputable newspapers are riddled with gossip column-type stories. As an outsider, it can be difficult to distinguish between fact and smut. Back home we have it clearly defined which print medium you go to when you want factual information and when you want gossip. The two never intertwine like they do in many newspapers here. Also the appearances of newspapers themselves can be misleading. Back home we associate flakey paper and bold prints with tabloids, sometimes with bright colors and even odd fonts. Some of the newspapers here that are modeled in a similar way are actually the reputable ones to believe where the crisp, uniformed looking ones are the one to give you gossip. Just goes to show you can’t always judge a book by its cover!

Actually I find it odd that I’m talking about newspapers. Back home, aside from working on art projects, newspapers are fairly obsolete in my life. It’s a sad fact, but a true one. I’ve grown up in a generation that is all about technology. With google, twitter, and other social media sites, I have become accustomed to always having information at my fingertips and multiple sources to verify stories. Living in England  this summer it’s been very, very different. At Trinity I don’t even have a television easily available to me unless I fight to use the one in the beer cellar, which is usually full of other students during the time of the evening news. Yes, we technically have wifi on campus, but I’ll be blunt – it’s of poor quality and is unreliable. (Three cheers for Ethernet chords!) To find information you really have to take the time to sit down, find a good connection, and patiently search for it. And often times when you want to know things or catch glimpses of a story it’s while you’re out and walking the streets. I think I’ve really taken this access for granted and find myself feeling out of touch when I do catch new information.

The whole experience of being unattached to my iPhone has been great in a lot of ways. I feel like I know my friends here a lot better than I would at this point if I was able to be constantly on social media or even texting friends back home. Because, shocker, we actually have to talk to each other. And it’s actually quite exciting to not feel tied down to a constant stream of emails or people wanting to get in touch with you. However, while I've enjoyed this newfound sense of liberation, I'm definitely excited to get my data plan back for the ease of staying informed. 

Maybe It's Okay to Fight Fire with Fire

We have spent a lot of class time discussing the effects and responses to violence in media. Many of us seem to feel that the violence should be limited and/or regulated. This is particularly in light of the concern that we as a society are becoming desensitized to violence, because we are bombarded with it daily on television, in movies, and in the news. I have to come to the defense of the news, though, by pointing out that we have to remain informed, and the news must provide us that service, no matter how scary its content is.

A previous blog post discussed the lesser amounts of local news coverage here in England and the role local news coverage plays in the creation of Mean World Syndrome through its constant coverage of local crime, distorting viewers’ perception of the world as a more violent place than it is. I actually believe, though, that this lack of local coverage could potentially be a major loss.

Through research for my second application paper, I came across a study that looked into whether using a public health model to frame violent news content would bring a purpose to news channels’ coverage beyond just informing. Using a public health model would just mean adding context to the issue at hand, the way news covers diseases and medical issues. Through this framing method, viewers are presented with more than just a horrifying school shooting, but also with what needs to be done to prevent such aggression from happening again.

When local violence is covered in this way, the community majorly benefits. Keeping that in mind, I feel that having less local news coverage in England could be a problem. I am pessimistically doubtful that crime and violence is less prevalent throughout England than it is in America. If so, presenting communities not only with the violence that is taking place within it, but also with what needs to be done to stop it, is a role news channels should be playing, here and everywhere. Because they can focus on smaller areas, rather than an entire country as the BBC does, local news channels would be best at this.

Ebola Virus and Media Coverage

     Today, my sister got back from a mission trip in Ghana, Africa. When the news of the Ebola outbreak was spreading last week, she had been there for about four days. I was immediately concerned and with my parents being the only ones talking to her, I had no idea what the current situation was in the community she was in. I had personally never heard of the seriousness of Ebola, so I searched all over the internet for information and statistics on the disease.
     Since it is easily spread by blood and body fluids, with some people even claiming it can be spread by a cough, I was naturally worried for her health. After reassuring myself it was very unlikely for the disease to spread to Ghana, I was very interested to see how the media portrayed the outbreak around the world.
     Most of the immediate information I receive regarding updates related to the virus come from Twitter. I follow WSBTV, so when the American patients were returning to the US last week and yesterday morning, I could follow their arrivals very easily. The backlash about bringing the Americans to Emory has also been present all over Facebook. Because I "like" the 11 Alive news page, many of the top stories appearing on my timeline have to do with the care of these patients. On these articles, there have been harsh comments from people around the US responding negatively to their transfer home. Although I haven't been able to watch CNN live, on their US online homepage, there is whole section specifically dedicated to the virus. Whereas, when I went to the BBC homepage, the Ebola outbreak isn't mentioned once.
     Noticing this difference, I asked my sister today what the reports were like in Africa regarding the virus. She said that they only knew about the virus from parents calling their children on her mission trip checking up on them and mentioning the disease. They would have had no idea that something like that was spreading if it hadn't been from news from the US. She also told me: "The only time I remember hearing about it was at an Internet cafe when these guys were on their Facebook and seeing people with pictures of it on there".
      When I asked her whether it was on local news or in their newspapers she told me she hadn't noticed it. Also, she said that when she was waiting at the airport it was the first time she actually saw live reporting about it, but it was through a CNN coverage. When I went online to try to find some examples of Ghanaian media content, two of their TV stations, TV3 and GBC Ghana (government run news), the Ebola outbreak wasn't mentioned at all in bold letters like it was on CNN.
     Although this is just my sister's account of what she noticed while being over there, I think it does show the importance we place on media content in comparison to how other countries do. With our advanced research and the capabilities of the CDC, I think the emphasis on learning more about Ebola makes sense, but it also is drastically scaring some of the American public when it shouldn't be.

Jaw Dropping or Line Crossing?

This weekend, I adventured down Oxford Street and Regent Street in London to do some shopping with friends. We had been walking for hours. I was so exhausted that my eyes were glued to my feet as we walked the final few blocks to Selfridge's. I just happened to glance up right as we were passing a clothing store, French Connection, with an advertisement displayed on their window that made many passersby, myself included, stop and take a second look. The ad that we saw is pictured above.

I had to stop and snap a picture because I couldn't believe what it said. As an advertising major, I'm always pretty conscious of the advertisements around me, while other people may just walk by them without noticing. But I was definitely not the only one giving this specific ad some attention. You can even see the guy in the reflection of the display window stopping to read the advertisement.

We have learned about violence and sexual content in the media, and I'm not sure this really fits into either of those categories. But I couldn't help asking myself, was it really necessary? Yes, using this (misspelled) profane word in ads draws attention, but at what cost? In my opinion, using language like this in an advertisement really casts a shadow on the brand and has the potential to drastically decrease the size of your consumer base. Even though the actual word wasn't used, everyone knows what is implied by the ad. And if a child walked by and read the word aloud, it would still sound like the profanity that it is. 

With so many media outlets for people to be exposed to advertisements in today's world, it is important for advertisers to create material that continues to push the envelope and draw the attention of the public. But where do we differentiate between jaw dropping and line crossing in today's advertising?

The Luxury of Choice

Visiting the British Broadcasting Company is something I have been anticipating since the moment I sent in my UGA at Oxford Study Abroad program application – last December. Needless to say, by the time we finally arrived that Thursday a couple of weeks ago, I was rather, rather excited.

During the tour, as we were looking out at the gigantic (awesome) newsroom, the tour guide compared the BBC to America’s CNN. This made me think of other news organizations we have in America – and there are quite a few – and imagine what their news operations look like. We have CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News…and the list goes on.

We’ve discussed in class, and it’s been mentioned in previous blog posts, what the pros and cons are of having a government-sponsored news organization like BBC, as well as what the BBC’s equivalent would be in America.

But I have a different question – where do British people go for their TV news, besides BBC? The British, for sure, love their BBC. Who wouldn’t – it’s awesome. But are there many other big-name news channels here?

Another topic that has come up in class has been the dangers of choosing a blatantly sided news source simply because it caters to and reaffirms one’s views. My dad, an über conservative, drives me crazy by refusing to get his news from any place other than Fox News. Clearly, this can be a problem, when one so rarely sees another side of the story and equally rarely changes their views on issues because of it.

But. We at least have that luxury – to be informed the way we would like to be. The liberals have their MSNBC, the republicans their Fox, and then CNN is there to provide middle ground. We’ve got plenty of options when it comes to choosing a news provider in America. The UK, however, seems to have a much limited list of choices.

The question I’m left with is:

Which country’s news consumer, in the end, is better off?

Scottish Independence: A Case Study in Framing

When you visit the website of any UK newspaper, there's a good chance you'll see some sort of category for news stories on the movement for Scottish independence. I'd heard a little about it just from being in Oxford surrounded by British media, but my general sense was that the discussion didn't have a lot of bearing on the future -- or at least the immediate future. Scotland and England united in the early eighteenth century, and it didn't seem likely to change. Every once in a while we talk about Puerto Rican independence in the U.S., but nothing's really changed.

But when I was in Edinburgh this weekend with Ashlyn and Brittany, we met up with a friend of Ashlyn's, who is Scottish. Brittany asked him an offhand question about the queen, and he said, completely deadpan, "I hate the queen."

It had something to do with football club alliances, which I won't pretend to understand. But talking to him got me thinking about the relationship between Scotland and England. After doing a little research, I stumbled on the website for -- what else? -- The Guardian. Their online paper has a whole section for Scottish independence with news articles and a roundup column every week. The tone of the weekly column is, unsurprisingly, pretty irreverent. The columnist swears, cracks jokes, and overall doesn't seem to give a lot of weight to the issue. In fact, in the most recent column, she references and embeds a video of a Scottish parody news segment claiming that recently translated portions of the Dead Sea Scrolls reveal that Jesus himself was a unionist.

Now, as the columnist mentions, the men who appear in the video have actually made a film about Scottish independence. So clearly they aren't taking themselves too seriously, but they do have some serious views on the issue. When I looked at Scottish news sources, I found the topic of independence handled a little differently. Here is the blurb under the "independence referendum" category of the Scottish Daily Record website:

Scots will be asked to decide on the future of our country in this year's independence referendum on September 18. The historic question will be: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" If Scots say yes, First Minister Alex Salmond will begin negotiations which could see Scotland becoming an independent country by March 2016.

In comparison, the weekly roundup column mentioned above was the first item displayed under The Guardian's Scottish independence category. There's apparently a referendum coming up next month in Scotland. Would I know that from reading The Guardian? Well ... maybe. Or maybe I would hear about Scottish independence and think about the weekly blog that told me nothing major is happening.

These examples are specific. I haven't searched every news website in England and Scotland. But I think this small, informal bit of content analysis might indicate a bigger-picture issue. I'm not saying that English media is totally unionist or that all Scottish media is separatist. But if a Scottish newspaper treated independence the way The Guardian does, I don't know how much I'd think my vote in the referendum is going to matter. How important is Scottish independence, and how much of a say do Scots have? I think it depends whose media you ask.