Hanging on my wall since 1991:

Sales tactics

In the marketing department, we call it “FUD”—the fear, uncertainty and doubt we (or our competitors) instill in the minds of potential buyers. By spreading a little FUD about the other guy’s product—whether we do it in a sales meeting or throughout piece of propaganda—we can cause the client to stick with the safe option and avoid business risk.  

Of course, the opposite is true in advertising. It’s the fear, uncertainty and doubt that sells a product. Advertisers prey on our insecurities. And let’s face it: every woman has them. Even the most confident among us can readily point out each of our own flaws. It’s a long list, one that ad teams know well. Does your hair look like this? Are you enhancing your bust line to its full potential? Is your failure to be thin because you’re eating the wrong cereal?

The funny thing is—now that I’m older—I don’t buy much based on advertising anymore. I don’t know if its maturity or cynicism or knowing what works for me now. But I buy the cereal that tastes good, the jeans that fit my body type (which is never going to change), and the cat food that the kitties are least likely to puke back up.

And even though I do still buy makeup and wear it regularly, it’s much more for me and much less to attract the attention of a man. Anyone who wants to date me will have to love me just the way I am, flaws and all.

Digging a little deeper

“The Black Press: Soldiers without Swords” debuted at the 1999 Sundance Film Festival, where it won the Freedom of Expression Award, “decided on by the documentary jury and given to a documentary film that informs and educates the public on issues of social or political concern.”( http://www.imdb.com/event/ev0000631/overview)

 The film was later broadcast on PBS. As the organization often does for its documentary features, an accompanying website was also created:

http://www.pbs.org/blackpress/news_bios/index.html

The site is a significantly deeper dive into the people, publications and topics from the film. As filmmaker Stanley Nelson said in the “Discuss and Chat” section, “Part of our struggle in making the film was to manage the enormous history of the Black Press, and to fit this history into an hour and a half. In doing this, we had to make some very difficult decisions.”

He adds that many newspapers were excluded–such as publications that were published by organizations like churches or the NAACP—simply because of space considerations. Further, the film documents the black press only through the 1960s, leaving out the significant gap in publications that has persisted since.

“I think that we need a strong advocacy press as we had in the 1920s, ‘30s and ‘40s,” says Jill Nelson, author of “Voluntary Slavery: My Authentic Negro Experience” in the “Modern Journalists” portion of the site. “It’s difficult to establish that…and one of the reasons is integration. We have forgotten that our interests are often very different from that of the dominant white culture.”

Most interesting, however, are the comments left by individual viewers. Some are academic inquiries to the filmmaker for more information or resources, showing that historians are becoming increasingly aware of the subject. The majority, though, are from those expressing—as many of us did in class—a surprise and (somewhat poignant) appreciation that this topic was being brought to light. As one person wrote:

I would like to say that I finished high school twenty five years ago. Our curriculum was not set up to embrace our self esteem. So we were not informed of The Black Press or anything important about our heritage. I was an adult before I ever heard of The Black Press. So when I became a parent, I spent time in the library and in book stores. Also, I looked for books every place. I wanted my son to know about our black history, for I knew that the schools in our country could damage our children. Please, if you have children there are certain black people that your children should know who they are and what they stood for in our society. Because after they know that our people were slaves in America, and The Underground Railroad with Harriet Tubman as the conductor, then they must know that: 1. We were freed. 2. Why we were freed? 3.What president was in office to execute? Last but not least. 4. Who were the real soldiers without swords? There are black heroes that every black child must have some knowledge of. Give them as much exposure as possible.

Viewpoints like this make me realize the importance of painting a more complete picture. But it also makes me wonder how much more is missing. What else didn’t I learn about my own nation’s history? What’s the rest of the story? It’s enough to make me dig a little deeper and find out.

"Egypt Proved Change Is Possible, Sexy and Cool!"

Short commentary by Mona Eltahawy on how media coverage of the peaceful revolution in Egypt changed stereotypes about Arabs (which were created by the media)--and how Mubarak had been using those stereotypes to stay in power.

This was on CBS Sunday Morning on February 13. (2:28)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2B7n4QwJr3w

Mirror, mirror

In the short film “A Girl Like Me,” 18 year old Jennifer says “we don’t know what it is we should be” because they don’t see girls like themselves—or their future selves as Black women—reflected back at them by the media. “We’re busy searching for [an identity],” she says, “while everyone else is busy throwing ideas at us and telling us what we should be.” As a result, many Black girls strive towards the iconic White representation of beauty—thin, light skinned, soft hair and model-perfect.

Jennifer is right to feel alienated, and she’s certainly not alone. These idealized images set a standard to which, advertisers tell us, we should all aspire. Repeated often enough, the concepts solidify and take on lives of their own. They seem more “real” to us than real life ever did, and it’s easy to think no one is like you when you never see your situation reflected in commercials, magazines, or newspapers. But when the predominant representation is white and middle-class and physically stunning, that leaves a lot of us feeling that we’re in the minority.

This homogenization of culture too easily categorizes individuals—unique and terrifically different—into convenient categories, which in turn become easy-to-swallow stereotypes. It’s easier to accept that someone fits into this group or that, and “they” are just a little bit lacking what “we” are so fortunate to have. It’s hard to say, though, if it’s a vast conspiracy to maintain the hegemony of white men or just a convenient shortcut of society.

Fortunately, even the most commonly held or universal stereotypes can’t bear up against our inherent individuality. As much as we categorize and classify, everyone interprets things just a little differently from our own points of view. The same photo of a woman in a red dress appears powerful, sexy, slutty or even cocktail-ready, depending on our perspectives, experiences and countless other influences. As in any mirror, media images look different depending on who’s doing the looking.

So even though The Mirror is telling us we should want to be the fairest of them all, maybe…just maybe….we are learning that we don’t always have to listen.  

Frames and perspectives

As I watched "the most amazing video on the internet" to open the class Monday night, I couldn't help thinking that our perspective--and that of journalists reporting a story--has a profound impact on our perception and reaction to the world. The stories coming out of Egypt fit perfectly into the frame of "struggle for democracy," a storyline loved by the national press. Coverage has generated a flurry of positive social media chatter and general support of the American people.

But take that same mass of exuberant Arabian men--nearly all of whom are Muslim--and move that protest to New York, Chicago or Dallas and the frame would very quickly change tone. And I don't think many Americans would be comfortable with it at all.

Yet, obviously, more than just the media has influenced our perception. In this case, we have to factor in our personal experiences in a post-9/11 world, from airport security to individual encounters with Middle Easterners. (My doctor, for example, is a Pakistani man whom I just adore...). All these elements shape our expectations and, in turn, color our reaction to the media.

This even extends to more mundane matters like sportscasts. In America--and especially in Texas--we've grown up with men on camera covering sporting events. That's just "the way it is" and fits our prevailing idea of what a game (especially football) should look and sound like. In many cases, this expectation trumps expertise: we get someone like Brett Musberger, who seems to know very little about the actual game, over someone like Hannah Storm or Erin Andrews, both of whom know their stuff.   

Which is not to say this won't change. ESPN currently employs 39 female anchors, reporters, analysts and on-air contributors--18% of their total on-air staff. Why? The audience is changing. 62% of women say they watch sports regularly or occasionally on TV, according to BIGresearch’s Simultaneous Media Survey (SIMM 10, July 07) of 15,439 consumers. And if media is driven by commercial/economic factors, broadcasters will air what viewers want to see.

And that includes stories like the Egyptian uprising. Americans love a revolution that reflects our own democratic roots...as long as it's half a world away. We'll tune in, and in the eyes of the media corporations, that's perhaps what counts the most.