Sunday 8 April 2012

A Response to Credibility, Gender and The Media by Sofia



Like Sofia, I too believe that the portrayal of women in American media is highly sexist, and at times, highly inappropriate. The absence of serious, high profile female news anchors and the focus on the superficial aspects female politicians is definitely an area for concern. Furthermore, the portrayal of some of the female news anchors that are employed by the American networks can be even more concerning, as they are frequently presented as highly sexualized individuals, as evidenced in the extremely short skirts of many female anchors on Fox. However, as the content of western media is largely governed by ratings, what is the possible solution? Fox News ranks number one in viewership compared to other news agencies and shows such as “The Today Show” and "The View", programs hosted by female anchors that frequently deal with highly trivial issues, are extremely popular. The American public is watching this content, and they love it! Although, like many, this is something I find to be extremely frustrating, more importantly, I feel that it highlights the potential difficulty in finding a solution to this problem.


 Headlines and Short Skirts...up next on FOX

After speaking to a friend, who is an editor for one of UofT’s campus papers, she suggested that the best way of dealing with it is to simply ignore these portrayals, as they ultimately highlight the decline of the credibility mainstream western media. Although I understood her point, as I too no longer rely on these sources for objective news coverage, after some consideration, I had to disagree. Although many can see the forest for the trees, a large number of people still rely on these media outlets to stay current. Just because these broadcasts are a joke to many, does that make it justifiable for them to portray stereotypes of women that are socially unacceptable? Definitely not. Ultimately, unless people stop watching this content, the presentation of women in this manner isn’t going to change. 

Clinton's hair...should we care?



Apocalypse Now?...I hope not!



Despite the numerous assignments I had due during the last week of class, after finding out that the focus of the last lecture was going to be on the apocalypse and its representation in popular culture, I knew that I had to attend. My interest in films documenting the world after "the end" was sparked after watching the cult classic, “28 Days Later”. Depicting a post-zombie apocalypse England, the film focusses on a small group of survivors who attempt to save themselves from hoards of individuals infected with the “rage” virus, a scenario that continues to send shivers down my spine to this day (I mean, hypothetically speaking, the rage virus pandemic is totally probable!). Despite terrifying me, for reasons that I had trouble understanding, I found myself deeply intrigued by this movie and other apocalyptic films I have seen since.

Trafalgar Square...bet you've never seen it so bare

However, Conrad Oswaldt’s chapter, “Movies and The Apocalypse”, in Secular Steeples: Popular Culture And The Religious Imagination, provided some intriguing insight. Oswaldt discusses something he refers to as the "apocalyptic imagination", attributing the success of secular apocalyptic films to their ability to satisfy this aspect of the human psyche, something that I find particularly intriguing. However, something that I do not agree with entirely is Oswaldt's argument that the  adoption of this new role is due to the increasingly secularized Christian church, which, as a result of its mainstream status, no longer needs to focus on the apocalypse to encourage solidarity amongst its followers.[1] Although the secularization of the church can likely be attributed to some of the increased interest in secular representations of the apocalypse, I feel that the widespread appeal of this genre is derived from a more innate aspect of the human mind. Starting in the late 1960’s and early 70’s, with films such as “Planet of the Apes” and “Omega Man”, the apocalyptic film has been an extremely successful model and continues to be the underlying theme for a large number of films spanning a variety of genres. Thus, based on this widespread popularity, I find it hard to believe that a shift in how mainstream Christianity portrays the apocalypse can be the sole purpose for this success. In a society with a diverse array of faith groups that haven’t been secularized to the degree that Christianity has, coupled with a growing number of “faith-less” individuals, it is likely that the interest in the apocalypse has origins that may include, but that are definitely not limited to, the decreased focus on the apocalypse by the Christian church. However, whether rooted in Christianity or more innate aspects of the human mind, I believe that Oswaldt is ultimately correct in his argument that the human “apocalyptic imagination” serves as an effective method for coming to terms with our finitude, providing an outlet for us to express our own fears concerning our inevitable demise.[3]


How the world ended in 1975 in "Omega Man"

[1]  Conrad Oswaldt, “Movies and the Apocalypse,” in Secular Steeples: Popular Culture And The Religious Imagination, (Harrisburg: Trinity Press International), 159
[2] Oswaldt, 159 
[3] Oswaldt, 159