Verbal Discourse.

There's No Giant Scarier Than The Media Giant.

2008-10-25T23:18:00.000-07:00

For a relatively conservative culture like Singapore's, some (especially the older generation) may find that Americanisation is a negative phenomenon. The low context culture of Singapore is slowly metamorphosing into an Americanised culture - for instance, just like Americans, we are (suddenly daring enough to) also fight for our freedom of speech! But what exactly is Americanisation?

Wikipedia states that it is the term used for the influence the United States of America has on the culture of other countries, resulting in such phenomena as the substitution of a given culture with American culture. When encountered unwillingly or perforce, it has a negative connotation; when sought voluntarily, it has a positive connotation.

This impactful phenomenon derived from the United State is so influential that a term "Americanisation" is coined for it. But how IMPACTFUL is impactful? Let's look at it media-wise...

The spread of American media including TV, film and American music artists, has been the main component of Americanization of other countries. American TV shows are broadcast around the world. Many of the shows are broadcast through American broadcasters and their subsidiaries such as HBO Asia, CNBC Europe, Fox Channel and CNN International. All of what is known as the "big four" American broadcasters have international distributors, for example HBO broadcasts to over 20 countries. Many of these distributors broadcast mainly American programming on their TV channels.

According to a recent survey by Radio Times The Simpsons, Lost and Desperate Housewives are among the most watched shows, with CSI being the most watched show among the surveyed 20 countries. American films are also extremely popular globally. All of the top 20 grossing films ever are American made or have an American influence, either through publishers, cast or financiers.

Its hard not to become a US media product consumer when its tv programs are widely available and made widely accessible by our own government. Most of us will also prefer watching US-made movies, especially when it is a box office hit, than watching local shows made by say... Jack Neo. Try asking the Americans who is Jack Neo. They'll most probabably be scratching their heads. But most Singaporeans (or Malaysians, or the Japanese) can tell you who Steven Spielberg is.

Cultural imperialism of the US continues to dominate globally and influence countries that consume their media products. It probably will never have a end to it. What are your views? Do you think that in the future, other developed countries (say England?) will overtake this imperialism?

Move Your Lips.

2008-10-19T15:37:00.000-07:00

GET LIPPY’ ABOUT HIV/AIDS WITH THE BODY SHOP & MTV NEW LIMITED EDITION GUARANA LIP BUTTER. WHILE MANY YOUNG PEOPLE BELIEVE HIV WILL NEVER TOUCH THEIR LIVES, GLOBALLY OVER 40 MILLION PEOPLE LIVE WITH HIV AND AIDS. SHOCKINGLY, HALF OF ALL NEW HIV INFECTIONS ARE AMONG YOUNG ADULTS UNDER 25.

A decline of awareness surrounding HIV prevention has been a contributing factor for the expanding epidemic in this age group, and the motive behind The Body Shop & MTV ‘Move Your Lips’ campaign and sale of New Limited Edition Guarana Lip Butter (£5.00). At least £2.80 from every Guarana Lip Butter sold goes directly to the Staying Alive Foundation**, Funding HIV awareness and prevention for young people around the world.

http://www.thebodyshop.co.uk/page/getlippy?cm_re=Default-_-SubBanner-_-Promo4

Smart move, huh. The reason why The Body Shop picked the lip butter (for the guys' sake, it's also known as lip balm) of all its products could be that, not all of us are makeup junkies (like yours truly), so it also appeals to women who are just concern about keeping their basic physical wellness in shape. Plus, The Body Shop is well-known for their fruity scented lipbalms (any girl, in general, can tell you that!). Furthermore, being sold at $8.00 per tub in Singapore, it's affordable and it is a reasonable amount for donation too, don't you think? Even young teenagers can be part of this buy-cum-donate campaign.

Upon further analysis, the agenda-setting function of the media is evident in this advertisement. According to this view, media gatekeepers select the issues they feel are most worthy of coverage and give those issues wide attention - in this case, the awareness of HIV. All along, HIV/AIDS has been a worldwide problem, affecting people of all ages - even newborns who contracted the disease from their infected mothers. In this generation, HIV/AIDS has become even more widespread such that there is a tendency that most of us have heard of someone we know having contracted them. Furthermore, local shows such as TabTV features stories of people with HIV/AIDS and the newspaper often show reports of babies infected with this disease. One way or another, the general public feels for them - especially when someone they know is infected with the sickness. Through these repeated news coverage from the media, they are able to raise the importance of the increasing HIV/AIDS in the public's mind.

I think it's a smart move of the media to jump on the bandwagon of the trend. How about you? Do you think this is an effective campaign? Or do you think this whole HIV/AIDS hooha is just something chosen by the media to focus on? Hence, overriding other problems like poverty, child pornography, global warming etc cetera?

Ban-kini.

2008-10-12T04:34:00.000-07:00

This morning, I was tickled while reading the article "Mankini Not Allowed at World Cup Match" in today's (12 Oct 2008) The New Paper. So I surfed the net to read up more on it and found...

Wembley Meanies Ban the Mankini

By ALEX PEAKE
Published: 11 Oct 2008

ENGLAND fans have been banned from wearing Borat-style “mankinis” to today’s World Cup qualifier against Kazakhstan at Wembley.

Three Lions nuts have pledged to wear the green male thong — made famous by Sacha Baron Cohen’s spoof Kazakh reporter — to the showdown.
But Met Police warn wearers face arrest on public decency or public order laws. A spokesman said: “If a person’s actions are likely to cause alarm or distress, officers would act.”

Some costume shops reported sales up 400 per cent. Borat lookalike Jason West, 35, of Chatham, Kent, has promised to wear a mankini. He said: “I’ll wear a coat on the tube but strip off at the ground.”

For more on the article, go to: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1795404.ece

so while this picture...

... is freely available on the net and The Sun even published the picture on their article, Singapore being a conservative nation, always steering away from controversy, featured that same picture on The New Paper article too - a censored one that is. Poor Borat had a black rectangular box covering his nether region with a word BANNED on it.

Anyway, I'm not here to talk about Singapore. Let's look at the bigger picture... Why was the mankini banned during the match?

The luminous green male thong was made famous by Brit comedian Sacha Baron Cohen. He wore it in his role as spoof Kazakh reporter Borat in the comedy Borat: Cultural Learnings Of America For Make Benefit Glorious Nation Of Kazakhstan. The movie has upset Kazakhs as they say it depicts them as backward people, who enjoy abusing women and the mentally handicapped.

Since Kazakhstan's primary religion is Islam, it was offensive that Borat, being a representative of the Kazakhs in America's society, wore a skimpy outfit for the movie. The Kazakhs felt that Borat was making a mockery out of their culture and religion.

As such, the England fans are banned from wearing mankini so as not to fuel the anger in the Kazakhs (fans and players) who may see it as a mockery. I believe those who were still persistent on wearing them are insensitive to others' culture, hence portraying certain cultural barriers to communication. British nationals, being fairly open-minded and generally involved in low context culture practises, may find it hard to assimilate with people who are more conservative-minded and high context-cultured like the Kazakhs. Therefore, they may refuse to see true differences where they exist between self and others (i.e. assumption of similarity). This inability to understand others' culture may inhibit good communication between the two different cultures.

At the same time, I would credit the Wembley authorities for issuing the ban of those mankinis during the match. This highlights the sensitivity of the authorities so as to ensure that the match would go on smoothly without any party feeling offended. Imagine England fans turning up in mankinis! After all, The New Paper reported that a group on social networking site Facebook called for English football fans to wear them in support of the home team.

Mankinis? Euw. The green thongs are ugly anyway. Good riddance, I must say.

What are your views? And what do you think the Kazakhs would have felt if the every England fan turned up in mankinis?

Hate To Be Loved, Love To Be Hated?

2008-10-04T21:25:00.000-07:00

Imagine you're entering your bustingly noisy school canteen, alone... You look to your left, you see a group of people who seem to be enjoying a hearty laugh together. A couple of them in the group often say "hi" to some schoolmates who walk by. You think, "hmm, they must be really nice, warm-hearted people."

... And then you look to your right, you see another group of people.. about 7 of them. Four of them look like they're engaged in a deep conversation, eyes all locked to the speaker. The other three seem to be having their own conversation, constantly having their own private talks and laughing at their own inside jokes. You infer, "Ahh, this must be just another one of those wannabes who try too hard to be noticed, but can't even keep their own group glued together."

So what exactly differentiates a group of friends from a clique?

wikipedia.com defines a clique as an exclusive group of people who share interests, views, purposes, patterns of behavior, or ethnicity.

However, a group of good friends also share those similar things, don't they? Personally, I think the factor that draws the line between a clique and a group is that cliques constanly practise the processes of inclusion and exclusion of people. To put it in simpler terms - they choose who they want to be friends with and who to be enemies with. Cronyism (the practice of favoring one's close friends) and favouritism are also characteristics that identify a clique.

Also, groupthink manifests in cliques whereby members practise total loyalty allegience to each other. As such, opinions given outside of the group are not well-received by the members. To me, this is a selfish way of thinking because when one is involved in groupthink, he/she puts up a hard-headed, defensive front and always (somewhat) in denial. I believe this mode of thinking exists because certain members are afraid to voice out their opinions, in fear of getting ostracised. But think of it this way, if one really is a true friend, he/she will respect your opinions and not have you conform to what they think. So, is it really worth it to be in cliques? Just to be deemed the most popular/attractive crowd? Probably popularity aids as an ego-booster and gives a sense of security? Hmm, perhaps.

But whatever it is, I think being in cliques is just a phase that will pass through time. To be honest, I was once in a clique as well when I was 16 (haha! hey, I was just SIXTEEN okay!). I believe most of us will out grow that phase. well................

..... until we step into a new environment of the working world, that is. Hmm, let's see.. There'll be the bootlickers, catty colleagues and all that favouritism issue going on like a vicious cycle. So maybe being in cliques is not a passing phase after all.

So what are your views regarding cliques? Is it really worth it? From my past experience, it really didn't feel nice to be hated (I know some people who love to be hated, seriously) and people having totally wrong assumptions about you just because you are 'part of the clique'. Those friends didn't stand by me anyway. I just so happen to be with them because my bestfriend was friends with a few of them. Nevermind about those people because I still have my bestfriend till now for 8 years and counting! :)

Spoilt For Choice.

2008-09-27T22:01:00.000-07:00

I'm quite the typical movie buff who enjoys almost every genre available - be it comedy, romance, action, horror (and the list goes on) et cetera. One observation made is that no particular one movie is dependent on solely one type of genre. well, maybe with the exception of sadistic, gruelling shows like Saw or tragedy movies with a heavy romance theme like Romeo and Juliet.

Personally, I favour a romance story injected with ample humour more than anything else (there's even a coinage to this genre: romcom!) - romance because I am quite a sappy, sentimental soul and; comedy because, well, don't we all enjoy a good, hearty laugh once in a while? Furthermore, I think most of us would not be able to stand a no-nonsense, serious romance film. Some romcom favourites of mine would be I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (2007), and What Happens in Vegas (2008).

However, in most of such genres of movies, we can only see the engagement process whereby the boy meets the girl, boy gets to know girl, boy falls in love, girl reciprocates (or the other way round), and then after solving an issue (climax of the storyline) they'll find a way to be together. The end. Whereas, movies like Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 romance-action film) and The Devil Wears Prada (2006 comedy-drama film) , portrays the management process whereby the couples' relationships are on the rocks, due to a communication breakdown or lack of time for each other, but then they realise that they are still madly in love with each other. Hence, working on improving their relationships. On the other hand, Movies like The Break-Up (2006, comedy-drama film), as the title suggests, focus on the disengagement process whereby both parties use communication to dissolve a relationship. Such movies showcase how both parties, if not one, are/is coping with the break-up process.

For me, I especially enjoy watching flicks that focus on the relational maintenance processes (i.e. management). Being in a relationship myself, I can always relate to such shows and the best part is being able to pick up useful pointers from the films too! It always gives me a warm feeling after watching such shows where the couple faces a big hurdle in their relationship and then taking time-out, away from each other (be it emotionally or physically). However, they'll ultimately realise that they are still very much in love and dependent on each other. Hence, the show concludes with a happy ending - a relationship even sweeter than it was before.

yes, AWHHHHHHHHHHH.

One such film is the above-mentioned, The Devil Wears Prada. Andrea Sachs, the show's protagonist, gets too caught up with her new job that she neglects her live-in boyfriend, Nate, and even stood him up on his birthday just to fulfil her icy editor-in-chief boss, Miranda Priestly's petty orders. Self disclosure is evident in the fact that Andrea lives together with Nate under one roof and they share their problems, thereby exhibiting trust and commitment in the relationship. The conflict comes in when Andrea becomes a workaholic much to Nate's dismay, who thinks that Andrea is becoming someone she was not. Hence, this difference in perception causes them to go their seperate ways for a period of time. However, the conflict resolution is a functional one as they get back together, even closer than before, after realising that they need each other to satisfy their emotional and relational needs. Thus, making the management process a successful, ongoing one, without having to resort to relational dissolution.

I give The Devil Wears Prada 5 stars! Go rent the show it if you haven't watched it :) I'm sure women will especially love it. This is the only movie, I daresay, is better than its 2003 novel.

Any other movies you would like to recommend? :) And even better if you can relate it to any comm theories we've learnt!

It's Not Just About What We Say or Hear.

2008-09-20T22:19:00.000-07:00

I am not a big fan of Ugly Betty, but what I like about the show is that it brings forth the intended emotions effectively, sometimes with the use of artful dramatisation. Hence it reaches out to the audience, somewhat enforcing a real connection between the audience and the main character. Watch this Season 3 promo of Ugly Betty and see what I mean :) It'll only take a minute, I promise.

Betty Suarez is the ever anxious, unconfident young lady holding a job at the ultra-chic New York City fashion magazine Mode. Unlike the usual tv series like The Lizzie Mcguire Show or Hanna Montana, which portrays attractive blonde young ladies, Ugly Betty (as the title suggests), is the story of the life of a woman who is anything but the prototype of a pretty blonde woman in the streets of New York. Personally, I find that this is what makes the story more real - the very reason why Ugly Betty makes such a good watch.

The use of several types non-verbal messages in the video above brings across the characters' emotions more clearly. In the first scene, Betty gushes and grins toothily when the constructors complimented her with a wolf-whistle. Her high-pitched reply - "Really?"; shows that she is surprised by the compliment, but nevertheless, flattered. A person's quality of voice (in this case, Betty's chirpy voice) is a form of paralinguistics that assists verbal messages to bring forth emotions more effectively.

Another type of non-verbal communication is of kinesics which is the study of body language. From this video, we can see Betty unable to conceal her affect displays when the two men proposed to her. In both situations, she tenses up, thus displaying her state of shock from the unexpected proposals. She also remains mummed for a few seconds. This silence - a form of paralinguistics too, as mentioned in the paragraph before; reinforces that state of shock she is experiencing.

Lastly, physical appearance too is a form of non-verbal cue that plays a part in bringing forth messages to the audience. Betty wears thick glasses and is always seen covered up with gaudy layers and layers of clothing - something that makes her oddly stands out in the glamourous environment of the fashion magazine office. One might describe her as a tasteless, workaholic nerd, but in actual fact, Betty is just a down-to-earth woman who chases her dreams (which is to own her own magazine) and refuses to conform to the culture in her office.

In totality, non-verbal messages play a great role in assisting verbal messages to reinforce one's emotions - whether on dramatised tv series or in each of our own real life. Sometimes, it's a great tool to express how we really feel - like when we look into our lover's eyes and say "I love you" to express sincerity. But sometimes it also betrays us, especially when we are trying to hide our anger or sadness -our tone tells it all.

Tie A Yellow Ribbon.

2008-09-12T08:29:00.000-07:00

I've been paying more attention to advertisements all around me (this includes the fact that since I am taking Com101, I have no choice. Haha.)This particular advertisement, however, caught my eye the most :

Yes, this is one the latest efforts by the Yellow Ribbon Project (YRP) organisers to encourage the public to embrace ex-convicts back into a non-prejudiced society. There's catchphrase that comes with the YRP too - "Help unlock the second prison".

Have you ever wondered, "why the colour yellow?"

If you haven't known yet, the idea is actually derived from an old song (1973 to be exact) by Tony Orlando called Tie A Yellow Ribbon. The song is about a man who has finished serving his jail term and he doubts that his lover would take him back. While still in prison, he wrote a letter saying that if she is willing to take him back, she should tie one yellow ribbon around an oak tree near their house as a sign of acceptance. To his surprise, when he came home, he saw A HUNDRED yellow ribbons tied to the tree.

In accordance to the song, the yellow ribbon symbolises a second chance and acceptance. The fact that his lover embraces his return shows that she is willing to put the past behind and start anew - loving the man for his great qualities, rather than holding prejudiced thoughts against him for his past mistake.

That is exactly what the YRP organisers hope to see out of this movement - maybe not to "embrace" the ex-convicts, but eliminating prejudice and stereotypical notions of them in society would be a good start.

However, what struck me the most is that the advertisement itself portrays a stereotypical image of an ex-convict. Over time, society has developed a shared perception that convicts have tattoos all over their body. Here, the yellow post-it note labelled "prejudice" pasted on the man's back is not the only "label of prejudice", but the tattoos itself also represent another prejudice symbol.

Also, the fact that the tattooed man can't seem to reach the post-it note to remove it parallels the difficulty of removing the tattoos on his body (i.e. costly procedures) - both a sign of difficulty of acceptance in society.

Nevertheless, not every man with a tattoo is bad. Sure, there are those who sport tattoos to make themselves appear more intimidating (especially those in gangs), but there are also those who see it as a form of body art, in which they can express themselves as unique individuals.

However, first impression leaves the most lasting one. As humans, we tend to select the qualities that stick out the most in a person.

Suppose you see a stranger on the streets with a body full of tattoo... Considering you do not know him personally, you will tend to judge him solely on his physical attributes. The contrast and intensity of his tattoos may make you easily pass him off as "someone bad" - this is also seen as a non-verbal cue. It's not that we are overly judgemental, but as humans, we always see the need to make sense of the world around us, whether consciously or sub-consciously.

To conclude, different people may perceive the advertisement differently. Personally, I find it apt enough to bring forth the message YRP wants to portray. However, some may find that the advertisement holds some prejudiced notions against the prototype of a "convict".

At the end of the day, we must adopt an open mind and always consider both sides of the coin to avoid potential miscommunication. I'm teetering between both sides of the coin, so which side are you on? :)

At World's End.

2008-09-07T00:58:00.000-07:00

Picture this. The world on it's own without any form of media communication - no reading of The Straits Times, no fiddling around with trusty online search engines, no watching of New's 5 Tonight on the black box & other forms that are by now, second nature to us. Without a doubt, we will be oblivious to the things that are happening around us (what more, the world crisis) because we are very much living in our individual bubble.

Currently the U.S is experiencing an active tropical storm season - from the devastating episode of Hurricane Katrina to Rita to Gustav to Hanna (pretty soon, they are going to be running out of names at this rate). As quoted by www.nytimes.com, "To borrow the mayor’s phrase, there are two more ugly sisters out in the Atlantic Ocean, heading for the United States"
- the upcoming Hurrine Ike & Josephine.

The Straits Times, Friday September 5 2008. (For an in-depth story, click on photostated article to enlarge.)

Personally, reading such news makes me feel fortunate to know of worldwide issues despite living at separate ends of the world with the U.S. This boils down to social constructionism whereby "communication surrounds people and holds their world together". True enough, most of what we know about the world comes to us through communiction rather than through direct experience (thank God we do not experience hurricanes here!). Eventhough these hurricanes do not affect us in any way (except that we too contribute to the rise in global warming that leads to their formation), we symphatize for the people experiencing the torment.

Besides the fact that we as humans with the ability to feel are able to emphatise with others' losses, news writers also have a way of using rhetorics such as logos and pathos, appealing to reason and emotions respectively.

"Tropical Storm Hanna, which caused more than 100 deaths as it passed through Haiti..." (www.nytimes.com)

Such horrid details of logical content makes us put ourselves in their shoes and in turn, appeal to our emotional side as well. Eventhough we are living in the the comfort of a sanctuary (i.e Singapore), surrounded by other countries, we somewhat feel for the victims and also makes us feel thankful that we are living in a much safer environment (not one to take for granted though). Through this, communication enables humankind to be as one when it comes to emphathy & living vicariously.

To sum it up, traditional mass media removes physical distance between people. This is remarkable since the modern period in the history of communication whereby public access to newspapers grew, followed by the rise of electronic media during the contemporary period. People no longer have to experience things first-hand and also, they have come to be more knowledgeable when it comes to pressing issues, both locally and internationally.

Personally, I feel that as much as modern forms of communication such as internet chatting or text messaging decays our conversational skills, they also provide us with an invaluable advantage - to possess a rich knowledge of the world.

I've laid out mine, so what are your thoughts?

Source: Tropical Storm Hanna Brings Rain to East Coast
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/us/07storm.html?scp=1&sq=hurricane%20hanna%20death&st=cse