Who Needs A Girlfriend When You Have The Food Network?

     This is going to be very difficult. I have never see pornography, so I'm not sure what to look for and identify in "food porn". So, I asked some friends and did extensive Internet research to make sure my observations would be more accurate. Let's start with a program on The Food Network.

Now, I have never cooked anything more advanced than Beefaroni, but I have watched Giada De Laurentiis on her various television shows. Do I plan on making any of the food created on the programs? No. Yet, I keep coming back. Giada begins many episodes of her flagship program in a relaxed location. She may be sitting in her living room, sending me a personal invitation to join her in the kitchen or she could be strolling along the beach in her bikini, telling me of a new exotic food hideaway. These introductions seem to be meant "to appeal to a sense of yearning", like many early works about sex (Bourdain). How could one resist? There are no ugly female chefs on The Food Network. They are stunning or old, and that doesn't count. Giada certainly is attractive ands her outfits always seem to reveal just enough without revealing too much. Just read the titles and comments on her Youtube videos to see how people feel about her show. Factor in the quick, sexy cut-away shots of fresh food and sensual reactions to taste tests and you can see why Giada's shows, and many on the channel, may fall short making master chefs of the public, "but as entertainment, it may just tide you over" (Patterson).
     If there was an election held for "food porn" president, Denny's would have to get more than a few votes. Take this commercial for their Baconalia event as an example.

 Listen to the announcer. His moans and groans sound more as if they belong in the bedroom than in the kitchen. The bacon here "isn't erotic, just unreal" (Patterson). In the same way traditional pornography creates a false picture of sexual encounters, Denny's creates an unrealistic depiction of food. Bacon sundaes are not typical foods and four-ways are not typical sexual acts. The creators of such television commercials and network programming are quite clever in there approach. Why not appeal to one of the things that drives us as human beings: sexual desires. Suddenly, we aren't thinking clearly. We need this bacon stuffed sandwich, stuffed with bacon. We may not know why, but or interest is peaked by a Giada De Laurentiis show and we watch through all of the commercials for Ford trucks and Pepsi Cola. Show us the sizzling bacon. Show us the fresh, bite size baby bell peppers stuffed with lord knows what. Show me those "beautiful objects arranged in ways one might never have previously considered" (Bourdain). Who's hungry?

Works Cited:

Bourdain, Anthony. "Food Porn: Lust for the gastronomic -From Zola to cookbooks- is nothing new, but maybe it's time to shelve it". 04 Nov 2001. n. pg. SF Gate. Web. 24 Sept 2011.

Patterson, Troy. "Oral Pleasures: The Food Network gets dirty with Nigella Feasts and Paula's Party". Slate. 5 Oct 2006: n. page. Web. 24 Sept 2011. <http://www.slate.com/id/2151036/>.

"Cool" Hunters? More Like Fool Hunters.

     When I was in high school, anyone who was anyone was into ABBA. But then I realized that they were totally lame. So, I got with what was really cool: Legos and deep dish pizza. I'm not sure what will be cool in 5 years, however I am sure it will be totally awesome and I'll be right there with the latest trends.

     I was going to start my post with something just like you see above, but then I came to the conclusion that that would be totally useless. Was anyone else disgusted by the video we watched in class? I found the fact that some morons have made a living off of claiming to capture some made-up "cool" and selling it to even bigger morons employed by large corporations funny, infuriating, and tragic. What those companies buy, what they ship out to our television screens, and what we consume with such passion is anything but cool. What a subjective and useless term. "Cool" is simply a person's individual tastes. When people sell an image of "cool", they are trying to force the public to like the same things. Sadly, many people fall into this trap. Just because someone likes something different than you, does that make them "uncool"? The "cool" hunters only find things that small groups like. That doesn't make it "cool". Yet, it is sad when they sell what they find to a large audience. The "cool" doesn't die, but genuine art or expression are often brutally murdered. Let us take a look at the case of the next big thing in music. Somewhere right now a band is playing their music in front of a small group of dedicated fans. The artist is expressing truth and emotion, which the audience relates to their own experiences, and a good time is had by all. Soon, other bands adopt similar styles, more people join the fan-base, and a scene is formed. This is the point in the story where our "cool" hunters come to the rescue. They sell this new scene to the corporate set. The company's rip out all of the soul and sell us the lifeless body. You and I buy the albums and we all live happily, mindlessly ever after.      

I Saw Madagascar In Theatres, So I'm Pretty Sure I Know All About Conditions In Sub-Saharan Africa

     We watch television shows with characters young and old. We watch movies that depict people of many different races, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Yes, we consume massive amounts of media that show us all kinds of human beings. Do any of them accurately or adequately reflect me or my community? Even though I see movies with characters who are in similar circumstances to those I find myself in, they are not me. I may read a novel with a character who shares some of my personality traits, but we aren't identical. We are all complex individuals, shaped through all the years of our lives by our own unique set of experiences. No form of media produced by others could ever fully capture that. So then, isn't it dangerous when people rely on "systems of communication that are not subordinated to the sovereignty of territory" to form judgements and perspectives (Seitz, 2010)?
     Television, advertisements, and other types of media are hard to resist. They move, unimpeded as shadows, into our homes, our countries, and our lives in ways that nothing else does. Even if we choose to reject media messages we disagree with, it is unlikely that those around us will do the same. So, if a book paints a negative picture of your age group or your culture, what does that mean for the readers of that book? If you read a magazine article about someone who looks like me, does that mean you know more about me? Unfortunately, so many of us get our information on other cultures or groups from media that does a very poor job of showing the many sides of a subject. With mass media, we see the "overwhelming ability that faceless, transnational corporations possess to alter cultures and shape global perceptions of groups (Seitz, 2010).
     We must completely reject the world view spoon fed to us by the media. I cannot count on mass media to accurately or adequately depict me. We must get to know people, not music videos. You must talk with someone and find out who they really are. Communities must come together to forge their own identity.
     Now, if I was forced to choose one piece of media that best portrayed who I am, it would be the clip below. Like Rambo, I am a man who must cover himself in mud to hide from, and subsequently kill, his enemies.

 Works Cited:
Seitz, D. (2010). Cultural Identity In the Age of Ether: Black Entertainment Television and the Island of Guadeloupe. 425-442.





     

The Media We Deserve

     It has been said many times that in the United States, we get the government we deserve. I believe the same can be said for media. Why are television shows that have no intellectual value always the most popular? Why does no one know of important events in the U.S. and around the world? Simply, mass media is brainless because he American public, as a whole, is brainless. Nothing of worth is brought to traditional forms of mass media due to the fact that there is no audience for such things. A source that brought about insightful news programming, thought provoking works of fiction or complex entertainment would soon find itself out of business or speaking to a scant few. Large audiences "are more interested in themselves than anything else in the world" (Lippmann). Perhaps this would explain why most would rather post what they had for breakfast on Facebook than seek information on America's use of predator drones in far flung foreign lands. Yet, couldn't it be said that powerful interests wish to keep the public ignorant of the real state of the world? Wouldn't mass media be the perfect tool to pacify us? While both of these are true, I feel that the idiocy of the general population plays right into such plans by evil entities more than it is caused by them.

     There could be hope for our society. Lippmann's plan for a group of elites running important functions may sound evil and controlling, but it doesn't have to be. If one could find a large group of intelligent people with only the best interests of the public in mind , we might well flourish. However, where Lippmann correctly grasped the public's inability to deal with complex issues, he overestimated humanity's capacity to rule with justice and good will in their hearts. So, with that out as a possible solution, where do we turn? As a young person, I would like to be excited by new technology and it's potential to save mass media and the minds of the citizenry. Since "we cannot be interested in, or much moved by, the things we do not see", satellite television or the power of the Internet can show us so much more than ever (Lippmann). Already though, these brave new frontiers have been perverted by the huge majority of morons in the world. Just look at the most viewed videos on Youtube. Thanks heavens they aren't anything important.   

Works Cited:

Lippmann, Walter. Public Opinion. Fq Classics, 2007. Print.