The Blogging Experience

Prior to this class, I had never knowingly read a blog, let alone written my own. I had a vague concept of what blogging entailed, i.e. writing your opinion on current and hopefully relevant topics, but I never saw myself having my own blog. When we were told that we needed to set up a blog for this class, I thought that it would be a pain, and wondered why we didn't just use the discussion board on Blackboard Vista. Once I set up my blog, though, which was surprisingly easy, I saw why blogging is an environment that is far superior to online class discussion boards.

Blogging is a very personal experience. This starts with being able to customize the layout and color scheme of your blog, and continues with the free expression of opinions on topics that I choose, and there for care about. As a result of being able to choose the topics that I blogged about, I found myself writing passionately in my posts. With each post and media critique or analysis, I wanted to prove my point, or at least make an argument for something that I believed in. Once I began a post, the idea that it would be graded was pushed to the back of my mind. This casual blogging atmosphere allowed me to write what I was really feeling, without worrying solely about censorship or apprioprateness. I was concerned with grammar and well-roundedness only because the post would be published to MY blog, which although it was primarily viewed by my classmates, is available for all to see. In fact, I did actually receive a couple of comments from people outside of the class, which was an exciting experience, one that brought to reality the fact that my blog is actually accessible by everyone who has access to the Internet. This is the driving force behind blogging; the potential for anyone from anywhere to communicate their opinions, bring locally or personally important issues and non-mainstream/counter-hegemonic ideas to the forefront, and inevitably influence others.

One of my favorite things about blogging was inserting pictures and video clips into a post. Like most of the technical aspects of blogging, once I figured out how to do this once, it became a simple, comfortable process. The inclusion of videos and pictures not only liven up the appearance of a blog, but also allow the blogger to include the exact picture, commercial, movie clip, Youtube video, etc., that he/she is discussing, making their argument that much more relevant and relatable.

The result of all of this has been an enjoyable blogging experience. I plan on keeping my blog, and using it as an outlet to voice my opinion on issues that I feel passionately about. I like the idea of having my own, personal space amidst the vast world that is the Internet, and the fact that I can give friends and family my blog address, and they will be able to read and comment on my posts. There have been many times in the past when I have had a strong reaction to mainstream media, whether it be frustration, disgust, or jubilation, and now I have a place to channel and express these reactions.

The Axe Effect

One of the areas in which stereotypical and often sexist representations of gender roles is most consistent and blatant in the media is in advertisements for male hygiene and grooming products. The Axe Body Spray campaign is the most obvious, over the top example of sexist gender roles and of the reinforcement of male hegemony and female subservience. The advertisements are based purely on the supposed "Axe Effect" that occurs after men use Axe products. This Axe Effect, as portrayed in the commercials, results in the mindless flocking of scantily clad supermodels, who represent society's hegemonic and virtually unachievable standard of beauty, to an often average looking man, simply because he just sprayed himself with Axe Body Spray.

I have found three commercials from the Axe Body Spray campaign. Here is the first:

This commercial uses clay animation, but has the same effect and the same approach as the majority of Axe commercials. The women in the ad are presented as sexual objects, who all look and act the same. They are all extremely thin, big-breasted, and scantily clad, and they "ooh" and "ah" over the one, suddenly attractive man in the commercial.

Here is the second commercial:

This commercial is the epitome of the sexism and hegemonic gender roles that are the basis of the Axe Body Spray campaign. It takes their usual approach and pushes it to the absolute max, increasing the women to men proportion to thousands to one. Putting aside the fact there are probably not that many women in the world who look like the ones in the commercial, those in the commercial would likely never give the man in the commercial a second look, but because he used Axe Body Spray, they stop what they're doing, which looking at what they're wearing was apparently getting dressed, and mindlessly flock to the body spray user, gritting their teeth like animals. And only the most "attractive" women in the world seem to respond to the product. All of this is topped off with the slogan, "Spray more, get more." Get more what, you might ask. The answer: more women, further enforcing the idea that men deserve more than one woman, and that women should be subservient to men.

Here is the third and final Axe commercial:

In this ad, which is promoted a new scent, "Touch," is yet another example of the objectification of women in Axe ads. Here, the women in the ad, who all once again fit society's unrealistic construct of beauty, are virtually being controlled by the man, and they are enjoying it. The Axe Body Spray gives the man the power to undress them and manipulate them, but rather than be offended, they are simply turned on.

These commercials, while extremely unrealistic, are effective because of the specific audience that they are targeting, and because of the fantasies that are likely fulfilling. While the Axe Effect is extremely unlikely, if the product can achieve just a tiny fraction of what it claims, it will be seen as effective among its users. The fact that women are being reduced to mindless, sexual, animalistic objects, incapable of resisting a man who uses Axe Body Spray, is apparently of no concern to those creating the commercials or, looking at the success of the product, to the consumers.

Thirteen as the Stereotypical Lesbian

I want to begin by saying that House, along with The Office, is one of my favorite television shows. After discussion about portrayals of lesbians in the media and different aspects of lesbian stereotypes presented on TV and in the media, it became evident that "Thirteen," or Remy Hadley (the character's little known and rarely used name) is in many ways exemplary of this stereotype.

On the show, "Thirteen," who's "name" comes from the competition for a job position on House's team during which House numbers all of the applicants, (only one character, though, continues to be called primarily by her number), is diagnosed with Huntington's disease. After her diagnosis, she throws caution to the wind, and begins experimenting not only with drugs, but with women. She goes through a phase in which she "loses control" and has no concern for her body. The members of House's team, especially Foreman, become worried about her and are critical of her "risky" lifestyle, which includes doing drugs and "hooking up" with random, but always extremely attractive women. While Foreman is concerned, House is clearly turned on by Thirteen's interest in women. One episode begins with an extremely provocative sex scene between Thirteen and a woman who she seduced at a bar and brought back to her apartment.

Here is a clip from the scene. If easily offended, or not of age, viewer discretion is advised.

As you can see, this encounter, as many lesbian encounters in today's media, is purely sexual and largely unrealistic. It was most likely intended for the show's male audience, as a some sort of fantasy fulfillment.

As the season continues, "Thirteen" regains control of herself, and begins leading a "healthy" life once again. She "regains her senses" and begins dating Foreman, in a normal, heterosexual relationship. Her reckless, experimental phase is over.

Thirteen's story line exemplifies many of the stereotypical images associated with lesbians, and as presented in today's media. Lesbian representations in the media are often experimental, purely sexual, and short term encounters. They tend to only occur between extremely attractive women, and are viewed as risky, adventurous, and provocative to both the other characters in the show, and the viewers of the show. "Lesbians" in TV shows like House, are usually bisexual and often return to their more steady, long term male partners after their short term lesbian encounters, reinforcing hegemonic heterosexuality.

So, as exemplified by Thirteen, while the inclusion of lesbians in the media has become more acceptable, their representation in TV shows is primarily via sexual encounters, and viewed as a deviation from the heterosexual norm, and a sort of rebellion, as opposed to a serious issue.

Thanksgiving Stereotypes

Watching the Thanksgiving edition of the Jay Leno show last night, I was taken aback by the blatant Native America stereotype used in one of his bits. In the bit, Leno goes door-to-door on Thanksgiving, and at one house, brings with him three "Native Americans" as guests. In the show, the "Native Americans" are men dressed in ridiculous looking headdresses, feathers, and face and body paint. As if this stereotypical representation of the "Indian warrior" wasn't enough, the three "Native Americans" immediately open up a poker table and begin playing cards, making fun of the ownership of casinos by Native Americans, and presenting a stereotype that all Native Americans own casinos and know nothing else but gambling.

We see this stereotypical representation of Native Americans constantly throughout the Thanksgiving season, and we have unfortunately become accustomed to it, but Jay Leno, as many do, takes it far past the Thanksgiving "Pilgrims and Indians" story, exaggerating the stereotypical outfits, behavior, and names of Native Americans even further, and adding a supposed obsession with gambling and casinos. In conjunction with the Walsh article, even with supposed objective historical representations of the encounter between Pilgrims and Native Americans, we see the subtle reinforcement of the primacy of white male hegemony, but with obvious, exaggerated stereotypes such as those used in The Jay Leno Show, this reinforcement is blatant and overpowering. Through representations of race in the media, we can see how our society discusses these issues, and in the case of Native Americans, our discussion of race is extremely inadequate and almost entirely stereotypical.

As of 11/27/09, this episode is not yet posted on NBC.com, but it should be soon. Click HERE to view clips or whole episodes of The Jay Leno Show on NBC.com.

Click-Through Activism With Real World Results

Flipping through the channels today, I saw a story on Channel 7 News, entitled "Cuffed on Campus." The story was about the students at Cape Cod Technical High School who organized a sit-in in protest of a speech given to them by their new dean during a lunch period when the students were served only cheese sandwiches as punishment for not cleaning up the day before. In the speech, the dean reportedly referred to the students in a derogatory manner, calling them "pigs" among other things. In response to their punishment and the speech from the new dean, some of the students created a Facebook group which eventually led to a school-wide organized sit-in, which resulted in the arrest of two students.

Click HERE for the Channel 7 News article and video

When the newscaster mentioned that the sit-in was organized through a Facebook group, I couldn't help but think of click-through activism. Unlike most groups on Facebook that promote a cause, this group led to fast, highly organized action. Although this is a reatively small scale example of click-through activism having real world effects, it is a demonstration of the potential of Facebook groups to organize an actual movement, when all of the members are emotionally invested in the cause.

Mocking "Click-Through Activism"

After reading the Washington Post article about "Click-through Activism," I was curious to find out what types of groups were currently popular on Facebook, and what kinds of causes they supported. In the process of browsing groups, I came across a group that mocks this "Click-through Activism" that is so common on Facebook.

The group is entitled, "An Arbitrary Number of People Demanding that Some Sort of Action Be Taken." Click HERE to view the page.

The description of the group is as follows:

"We Demand Immediate Action on This Crucial Issue!

If nothing is done then however many of us are in this group will be very displeased. We may even comment to express our anger, possibly with bad punctuation or spelling to further communicate our individual but quite possibly collective emotion.

Something Must Be Done About This!"

I found this group, which has over 95,000 members (now including me) to be hilarious, mostly because of its accuracy in capturing the essence of most Facebook groups that claim to support a cause. With its satirical representation of a so-called "activist" Facebook group, this group brings up many of the problems and shortcomings of "Click-through Activism." It mocks the fact that while people who participate in "Click-through Activism" do so to "express themselves as individuals," it is really because of an eagerness to fit in with the collective and an aimless desire to be a part of a cause that they join these groups. The specific cause itself is unimportant, as we saw in the Washington Post article which mentions a psychologist who created a group supporting an entirely fictitious cause, the prevention of the leveling of Copenhagen's Stork Fountain to make room for an H&M clothing store. Within a week or so, the group had over 27,000 members, despite the fact that it was clearly stated on the groups page that the cause was made up. This experiment demonstrates the blind desire of Facebook users to "express themselves" by supporting a cause. Any cause will do.

The group, "An Arbitrary Number of People Demanding that Some Sort of Action Be Taken," also mocks the pointless and ineffective way that most "activist" groups express their anger and emotion about a cause, i.e. via mispelled and poorly punctuated comments that rarely lead to any actual protest or external activism.

I will surely keep this satire in mind the next time I decide whether or not to join a group. The popularity of Facebook gives it the potential to have a real life influence, but until its users start taking the groups and causes seriously, start joining groups for the right reasons, and start making a commitment to support the groups they join, Facebook groups will remain a joke.

What Kind of Tech User am I?

Here are the results of my tech user quiz from PewInternet.org :

You are an Media Mover

"If you are a Media Mover, you have a wide range of online and mobile habits, and you are bound to find or create an information nugget, such as a digital photo, and pass it on. These social exchanges are central to your use of information and communication technology. Cyberspace, as a path to personal productivity or an outlet for creativity, is less important to you.

Overall, this result is quite accurate. I do have a wide range of online and mobile habits and I do tend to use technology and cyberspace primarily for social purposes. While I of course use cyberspace and the Internet for academic purposes, I feel media/technology/cyberspace is often more of a distraction than a creative aid. Cyberspace as a "path to personal productivity" is virtually nonexistent in my life. In fact, while I enjoy using cyberspace, I feel that it actually takes away from my productivity.

GLOCAL SCENE

Glocal Scene is a documentary by Chestnut Productions about global local music scenes. The film makers, two men from Leeds, travel to seven different countries, from South Africa to the United States, find and interview local musicians, and hear their music.

The issues that emerge in the film have a lot to do with the barriers to entry into the popular music world, the "unhealthy monopoly" of companies such as Clear Channel as a result of the Communications Act of 1996, and the changing technologies and trends surrounding music.

What inspired the film makers to make the film was knowing a lot of great musicians in their home town that could not get past the local scene, and wondering if this was the case in cities and towns throughout the world. They are by no means expert film makers, but this only adds to the organicism of the film. Something perfect and polished would not be an accurate representation of the music or the six months that the film makers spent on the road.

The musicians in the film "don't have the right hair," or "aren't from the right city," so their music simply isn't promoted or backed, leaving it up to the musicians to have their music heard via touring and networking. As the film states, "Those with the most money get the most coverage," and these musicians do not fit the marketing model of the major corporations (and don't want to) and certainly don't have the most money. As one musician puts it, "Your music is ok, but your pants aren't right."

Another musician talks about a three month period around 1995 when "all the rockers were killed, and marketing took over." At the beginning of this period, Nirvana was at the top of the rock world, and three months later, Third Eye Blind had taken its place. Since then, it has all been downhill.

In the end, the result is something that gives hope to those who love music. Although we are "being fed the same 40 songs every fucking day," if you look hard enough, there are plenty of local music scenes with musicians who care about the music and love making it, not for the sake of money or fame, but for the sake of the music. One band member says that he knows there will not be a large crowd the first time that he plays in a new city, but as long as there is one person up front, enjoying the music, then that is enough.

In summary, one musician in the film was asked, "How would you market this (your music)?" His answer was simple. "You wouldn't."

George Lopez: The Kind of Change Obama Can Believe In

Here's the George Lopez commercial with President Obama that I mentioned during today's discussion.

In class, we talked a lot about the significance of appearances in the media, especially in the context of political campaigns. We focused on Nixon and Kennedy and the first televised debate, and on McCain and Obama. Both examples reinforce the importance of appearances, and the value that the American public puts on appearances. In both cases, the young, charismatic, attractive candidate came out on top, and although their appearances were not the only reasons for their successful campaigns, they most certainly played a role.

This commercial is a prime example President Obama trying to keep up his appearance in the media, well after his campaign and well into his first term as president. In the commercial, President Obama endorses George Lopez's new late night show on TBS, calling it, "The kind of change I can believe in." My gut reaction to this was that it was somewhat inappropriate to use his profound campaign slogan of "change," a slogan that holds so much significance to so many people, in reference to a late night television show. I understand that President Obama is trying to maintain his down to earth, accessible image, but at a certain point I think people begin to wonder where his priorities lie. The comments on the YouTube video certainly enforce this criticism. Many of them sarcastically comment that Obama is clearly working hard for our country.

Overall, with appearances in commercials like this, Obama, and any politician for that matter, runs the risk of coming across as too concerned with his/her appearance in the media and not concerned enough with important political issues. I am by no means against the president making an effort to be relatable to the everyday American, but I am frankly a little disappointed, and even embarrassed by Obama's choice of words in this particular commercial.

The Death of the Album

As we talked about in class today, virtually no one buys a complete album anymore.  Not only is the physical act of going to a record store and purchasing an album lost, but so is the age and appreciation of the cohesive album.  When cohesive albums were appreciated, artists were defined more by their albums than by their singles.  Just look at the series of albums recorded by The Beatles during the 60s.  This progression of albums defines The Beatles' and the development of their music.  

I realize that technology has moved away from CDs and more toward Mp3 files, but even if the act of purchasing an actual CD is now obselete, that doesn't mean that the cohesive album should be lost.  A couple examples of cohesive albums from the 60 are the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and The Who's Tommy, the first rock opera.  These two albums were meant to be listened to in order, from start to finish, and each album was very carefully put together.  

Today, albums are nothing but a group of singles, most of which have no relation to each other what so ever.  In my opinion, it is too bad that "the album" has lost its meaning.  Gone are the days when you would go to the record store, buy an album, and listen to it from start to finish.   Whether you think this change from consumers having collections of cohesive albums to consumers having a random assortment of singles on an ipod is good or bad for music, it is certainly a significant development in the music realm; one that needs to be noted.  

Billboard Hot 100: Not About the Music

Here are the top 20 songs and artists from this week's Billboard's Hot 100, as well as the record label for each.  Brace yourself....

1.  I Gotta Feeling, The Black Eyed Peas : Interscope Records

2*. Down, Jay Sean Featuring Lil Wayne : Cash Money Records

3*. Party in the U.S.A., Miley Cyrus : Hollywood Records

4. Run This Town, Jay-Z, Rihanna & Kanye West : Roc Nation

5*. Whatcha Say, Jason DeRulo : Beluga Heights/Warner Bros

6. You Belong With Me, Taylor Swift : Pacificcoastmusic.com

7*. Paparazzi, Lady Gaga : Interscope Records

8. Use Somebody, Kings of Leon : RCA Records

9*. Obsessed, Mariah Carey : Island Records

10. Empire State of Mind, Jay-Z + Alicia Keys : Roc Nation

11*. Cowboy Casanova, Carrie Underwood : 19 Recordings Limited

12. Forever, Drake Featuring Kanye West, Lil Wayne & Eminem : Interscope Records

13. She Wolf, Shakira : Epic Records

14. Hotel Room Service, Pitbull : Mr. 305/Polo Ground Music/J Records

15*. Sweet Dreams, Beyonce : MusicWorld/Columbia Records

16. Best I Ever Had, Drake : Young Money Entertainment

17. Good Girls Go Bad, Cobra Starship Featuring Leighton Meester : Fueled by Ramen

18*. Throw It In The Bag, Fabolous Featuring The-Dream : Desert Storm/Def Jam

19. Knock You Down, Keri Hilson Featuring Kanye West & Ne-yo : Mosley/Interscope

20*. Break Up, Mario Featuring Gucci Mane & Sean Garrett : J Records

*The asterisks indicate "Titles with the greatest airplay and sales gain this week," which, after watching Money for Nothing, we know means absolutely nothing as far as the quality of music goes.  All it means is that these songs and artists have been promoted and backed by the large corporations.  They simply have the most money behind them.

Here are the companies that own the record labels of each artist in the top 20:

Walt Disney Records: 

Miley Cyrus

Warner Music Group: 

Jason Derulo

Universal Music Group: 

Drake

Jay-Z

Mariah Carey

Jay Sean

Black Eyed Peas

Lady Gaga

Fabolous

Keri Hilson

Sony Music Entertainment: 

Shakira

Kings of Leon 

Pitbull 

Beyonce

Mario

Carrie Underwood

Big Machine Records (Independent, records distributed by Universal Music Group): 

Taylor Swift

Fueled by Ramen (Independent, records distributed by Atlantic Records, which is owned by Warner Music Group)

Cobra Starship

As you can see, a startling 14 of the 18 different primary artists in the top 20 of the Hot 100, are signed with a record label that is owned by either Universal Music Group or Sony Entertainment.  These two companies are clearly dominating the popular music market, and because of their dominance, are able to use popular music to serve their own purposes.  

The commercializing of music, turning it into a purely money-making industry run by people who know next to nothing about music, has devastated popular music.  The corporate monopolization of the public airways has made it virtually impossible for independent or up and coming musicians to have their music heard by a widespread audience, and as a result, there is very little variety in today's popular music.  Also, the focus has turned from musical talent and innovation to marketability.

Just look at the number one songs from each week of the Billboard Hot 100 from any year between 1959, the inaugural year of the Hot 100, and 1979, and you will see a great variety of music, a number of different artists, and most importantly, quality music that has a message and uses the media of music as it deserves to be used.  When the airways were public, DJs had a say in what songs to play, and the choices they made depended on the quality of the music, what the DJ deemed worthy of playing, and what the people wanted to hear, not which corporation had the most money.  

Let's take a quick look at the Billboard Hot 100 from 1973. (a random choice)

The list can be seen by clicking HERE.  

In 1973, the Hot 100 included everything from The Rolling Stones to Stevie Wonder.  It included lasting hits, hits that are still popular today, including Superstition, Crocodile Rock, Love Train, Let's Get it On, and more.  

Now take another look at this week's Hot 100 and ask yourself if any of these songs will be anywhere near relevant 36 years from now.  My guess is NO.  

The popular music industry needs to see a complete overhaul in order for popular music and the Billboard Hot 100 to actually mean something again.  Until then, I will continue to distance myself from the popular music of today, knowing that it is being used primarily as a source of income for a handful of large corporations.  

Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story"

While I was watching TV this afternoon, two commercials stood out to me.  The first, a NutriSystem ad, struck me as being hegemonic, but the other, a trailer for Michael Moore's new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," seemed to be refreshingly counter-hegemonic.  

Click HERE for the NutriSystem Ad.

This advertisement presents the perpetually recurring image of hegemonic femininity.  The goal of the ad is to make women feel that they need to lose weight, and lots of it, in order to be happy.  I agree that exercising and being healthy is important, and can improve one's self-esteem, but losing 40 pounds by eating chocolate cake and pot roast is not only unrealistic, it is unnecessary.  The commercial assumes that anyone who doesn't have a slim waistline, like that of the "new and improved" Marie Osmond, is  unhappy, and suggests that there is only one factor that affects one's happiness: weight.    

By the way, did you see how tiny that plate of meatballs was?!? 

Click HERE for the "Capitalism: A Love Story" movie trailer.

This trailer stood out to me because it is counter-hegemonic.  Amidst all of the usual hegemonic commercials, it was extremely refreshing to see something and someone who isn't afraid of challenging the dominant ideology.  This is what gives counter-hegemonic forces a chance.  When they reach the main stream media, they are noticed.

This film not only challenges those who are in power, i.e. politicians, wall-street traders, etc., it also gives the common person a feeling of empowerment, as opposed to helplessness.  It brings to the forefront issues that most Americans simply accept as out of their control, and presents the idea that there is something we can do to fight back and be treated fairly.  "There's got to be some kind of rebellion between the people that have nothing, and the people that have got it all," says an average-looking man in the trailer.  This statement is a prime example of counter-hegemony.  It contests the hegemonic social order.

I'm sure the film will receive much criticism and be the center of much controversy, but this only makes me want to see it more.  

Kickoff Post: Media and Me

I would describe myself as a somewhat average consumer of mass media.  I follow several TV series, including The Office, House, Psych, Man vs. Wild, Top Chef, and more.  I am a netflix subscriber, and watch a good deal of movies.  I read the occasional newspaper or magazine, but rely primarily on the internet and television for news.  In fact, I get most of my news from Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart.  I have a facebook account that I check multiple times a day, even though checking it once a week would suffice.  

Looking back on my opening statement, it is a bit scary that this is what I consider average consumption of media, but even scarier is the fact that the general public would likely agree with me.  

As far as music goes, although I am not interested in today's popular music, I am a lover of music.  I believe music can unite groups of people and spread important messages.  It is something that should be studied, explored, and appreciated, as a form of entertainment, as a vehicle for expression, and as an art form. 

If I were to choose an area of expertise or extreme interest in relation to mass media, I would have to choose professional sports.  I have always loved sports, but only recently have I become aware of the relationship between sports and mass media.  Mass media has a huge effect on professional sports, and vice versa.  I hope to elaborate on this in future posts, but a classic example of sports influencing media and the media influencing sports is the Super Bowl.  Companies and advertisers from all over work frantically to come up with effective commercials to be played (at an unbelievably high price) during the Super Bowl, and people who are not even interested in sports tune in to the game just to see the commercials.  

The media can also turn locker rooms into soap operas, and create heroes and villains among athletes. A couple examples of this are T.O.and Brett Favre.  Click HERE for a video of Terrell Owens talking to the media after a game.  In the interview, he blames the media for "pointing a finger" at Tony Romo, his quarterback.  While his sudden burst of emotion and tears in defense of his team mate is quite entertaining, this is also a good example of the effects that being under the constant scrutiny of the media has on athletes.  

It often bothers me that mass media is so accessible, and ultimately smothering.  I wonder what types of activities and values are falling by the way side as people become more and more enveloped in the technology and media that is constantly at their fingertips.  Walking around campus today, it seemed as though every single person was looking down at their cell phone, only looking up from time to time to make sure they didn't run into anything.  

I am certainly not blaming anyone for their consumption of media.  Like I said, I consider myself among the majority of media consumers.  There is hardly a time in my dorm room when the television or my laptop are not the focus of my attention, and often times it is both.  I have to go to the library if I want to escape the media and focus on my homework.  Taking a look at my desk calendar, I find that it is riddled with times and dates of sports games and television shows, and I become disgusted with myself for planning my life around something on television.  I think it is very important to take a step back from your life, and look at what kinds of effects media is having on you, and ask yourself if you are spending your time in a way that is beneficial to you.  I do think that entertainment for entertainment's sake is important, and even necessary at times, but I also believe that it cannot hurt to take a more critical look at what the media is presenting to you, and more importantly, how it is effecting your life.