Love the animals, not the celebrities.

Activist Project: Find an activist project and speak to your own political engagement with a given cause.

I love animals. Currently, I have three cats, a fish, and a chinchilla in my house. I love animals, but I also love my meat. Although I would like to become a vegetarian, I can’t since I don’t like many vegetables, and let’s face it, I can’t live without bacon.
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, also known as PETA, is an activist organization that tries to help animals from being “unethically treated.” In other words, they speak out for the animals that can’t.
Now, as I’ve already said, I love animals, and yes PETA is a good activist organization (meaning it is acting in good terms), but to me, it is a publicity scheme. “Publicity has [another] important function. The fact that this function has not been planned as a purpose by those who make and use publicity in no way lessens its democracy. The choice of what one eats (or wears or drives) takes place of significant political choice. Publicity helps to mask and compensate for all that is undemocratic within society” (Berger, 149). In this quote from the book “Ways of Seeing,” John Berger demonstrates the way I see PETA. Yes, PETA is known for their actions to help animals, but, what are they really known for? Pamela Anderson.
Pamela Anderson is the iconic figure for PETA. And she, being the iconic figure, stands for the other celebrities that are also apart of PETA. She is the publicity pull factor – in order for PETA to make money, they use Pamela Anderson to attract a global audience.
PETA uses celebrities as propaganda, and in return, the celebrities gain higher social standing. After Pamela Anderson became the spokesperson for PETA, she became “the spokesperson for PETA,” and no longer “the sex tape girl.” Well, technically she is still “the sex tape girl,” but now she has gained “importance” from becoming an item of PETA.
But the truth is, her importance is as tiny as her brain.
PETA would be better if they didn't lower themselves to her level.


John., Berger,. Ways of Seeing Based on the BBC Television Series. New York: Penguin (Non-Classics), 1990. Print.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA): The animal rights organization. Web. 19 Nov. 2009. .

“Facebook should change its name to Baitbook”

Participatory Culture(s): Write about your involvement in a participatory culture (gaming, social networking, knowledge community).

I hate to admit it, but I am a Facebook addict. It’s pretty embarrassing because sometimes I’m on Facebook for no apparent reason, and I find myself looking at photos of people I don’t even know. You might be laughing right now, only because you know you do the exact same thing.
I’m currently looking at my profile, and see that I am in 41 groups, and I am a fan of six different pages. I also see that I have 248 friends, most of which I don’t talk to, and some whom I don’t even know. The connections that I have with the groups, the pages, and my friends, are all acts in the participatory culture known as social networking. Everyone who has a Facebook account, or MySpace, Twitter, etc., are apart of a large social networking culture; meaning that we all act together to serve a social network, and keep it running.
In Chuck Klosterman’s book, “Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs,” he writes about the two ways that he looks at life. “The first view is that nothing stays the same and that nothing is inherently connected, and that the only driving force in anyone’s life is entropy. The second is that everything pretty much stays the same (more or less) and that everything is completely connected, even if we don’t realize it” (Klosterman). His second view completely relates to social networking; even though we might not realize it, using a social networking tool, like Facebook, connects each individual who uses it together.
For instance, I am in a group titled “Facebook should change its name to Baitbook.” The group, which was created by a former high school classmate (who was relatively funny, but just down right dumb), was created as a petition for Facebook to change its name to Baitbook (pretty self-explanatory). Every person in the group didn’t really expect that Facebook would change its name; rather, we were just in it because it was a big inside joke type of thing. The group is completely ignored by anyone important, but, nevertheless, we stand strong, together.
Because that is what social networking is all about: togetherness. It’s about finding people from elementary school to see how ugly they’ve become; it’s about joining groups, and becoming fans of television shows, movies, and music; and, most importantly, it’s about creeping profiles of people you don’t know, because you know that one day you will end up meeting them in Brampton.

Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, drugs, and cocoa puffs a low culture manifesto. New York: Scribner, 2003. Print.

"Face book should change its name to baitbook." Facebook. Web. 19 Nov. 2009. .

This is not that, and this doesn’t mean that!

Culture Jamming: Select and analyze an example.

I came across a very interesting spoof ad on the Internet. The advertisement (shown here) is an example of culture jamming: taking a pop culture phenomenon and incorporating a pop culture reaction to the product. The photo has a “classic” Absolut Vodka appeal, but the caption “Absolut impotence,” reveals a truth about Absolut Vodka; the truth being that Absolut Vodka doesn’t give you that powerful vibe that is produced through its advertisements, yet the complete opposite.
The first thing I thought about after seeing this ad, was Scott McCloud’s deconstruction of the painting “The Treachery of Images” in his book, “Understanding Comics.”
“Here’s a painting by Magritte called ‘The Treachery of Images.’ The inscription is in French. Translated, it means ‘This is not a pipe.’ And indeed this is not a pipe. This is a painting of a pipe. Right? Well, actually, that’s wrong. This is not a painting of a pipe, this is a drawing of a painting of a pipe. Nope. Wrong again. It’s a printed copy of a drawing of a painting of a pipe. Ten copies, actually. Six, if you fold the pages back. Do you hear what I’m saying? If you do, have your ears checked, because no one said a word” (McCloud, 24-25)
The way McCloud analyzes “The Treachery of Images,” is exactly how the spoof ad is analyzing Absolut Vodka. Absolut Vodka: Absolut impotence. The Absolut Vodka bottle in the photo is not a bottle; it’s a photo of a bottle; a photocopy of a photo of a bottle; a scan of a photocopy of a photo of a bottle, and so on.
This spoof ad is a means of bringing two opposites together to create a message for an audience who is attracted to the message, and the truth behind the message.

McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Kitchen Sink, 1993. Print.

I’m going to buy something on “Buy Nothing Day.”

Buy Nothing Day: On November 25th people around the world will work to create awareness about over-consumption.

I’m staring at my computer with a “stank” face. I have a “stank” face because I’m looking at the Adbusters website for “Buy Nothing Day.” What a ridiculous idea; I mean, it’s a great idea, but a ridiculous motion – no one is not going to buy nothing for one day, or turn off their cars and electricity for 24 hours – we live in a society that depends on electricity and motor transportation… most of us aren’t Amish anymore. What if you live on residence and have to buy dinner for yourself? What if you have a project due the next day, and you need a night-light to write it out? Or what if you run out of toilet paper, and you have to go real bad? In this context, it would be kind of hard for some people to not buy anything for one day. But this campaign isn’t dwelling on the necessities, it’s dealing with over-consumption, and its objection is to inform people of how much they spend on useless “wants,” and not “needs”.
Chuck Klosterman tackles this notion in his book, “Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs.” In the second chapter of the book, Klosterman analyzes the video game “The Sims,” and his role as SimChuck (his character). After realizing that he was playing a virtual replica of his own life, Klosterman decided to get answers from the creator of the game.
“However, [Will] Wright bristled when I suggested that The Sims is mostly a glorification of consumerism that ultimately suggests happiness is available at the mall… ‘Materialism is the red herring of the game,’ he says. “Nobody seems to pick up on that. The more you play, the more you realize that all the stuff you buy eventually breaks down and creates all these little explosions in your life. If you play long enough, you start to realize that those things won’t really make you happy.’… Once again, Wright bristled; he asked if I was talking about the little person in my computer or the little person in my own mind. I told him that it was hard to tell the difference, because we both seemed to be doing the same shit ad neither of us knew why” (Klosterman, 23).
After speaking with Will Wright, Klosterman realized that he, and himself as SimChuck, were caught up in materialism. In the end, he found that in both his real life, as well as his reality Sim life, his possessions didn’t mean anything, and they didn’t make him any happier.
The objective of “Buy Nothing Day” is exactly the object of The Sims: in order to complete the game, you have to realize that material possessions aren’t important.


Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, drugs, and cocoa puffs a low culture manifesto. New York: Scribner, 2003. Print.

"Buy Nothing Day Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters." Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters Journal of the mental environment. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. .

It’s not what I thought it to be.

Net neutrality: The Internet is quickly becoming a battleground between public and private interests. What are the most important features of this conflict?

I was my own experiment. I chose to analyze a day in the life of myself, to see how much time I actually spend on each of the three “W’s” (work, work, and work) in one day. The first “W”, which is attached to physical work – the pain-staking, child labour, trying-to-pay-for-University, kind of work – I spend approximately 8 hours a day on. The second, attached to mental work – also known as schoolwork, child labour, and trying-to-get-a-descent-grade-for-University – I spend roughly 4 hours on. The last “W”, emotional work, which includes crying because I’m so tired of doing physical and mental work, I spend the rest of my day on.
This is a break down of exactly what elements go into each of the “W” categories:
Physical work:

- Working at a Bakery: having to deal with rude and unhygienic customers from Brampton. I work approximately 8 hours a shift, four days a week.
- Working at a Hockey arena: Serving beer to hockey fanatics, who are too drunk to know that the Battalions are possibly the worst hockey team in the OHL. I work probably 4 hours a shift, two days a week – 2 hours of my shift are spent on my iTouch (Facebooking my friends who are having an awesome time at a party I couldn’t make).
Schoolwork:
- Mass Communications: I watch Ian do stuff on the Internet + do the homework he assigns
- Photography: I watch Kate do some stuff on the Internet + do the homework she assigns
- Introduction to Media Writing: I pay attention to Lara + do the homework she assigns
- Internet Survey and Research: I’m on the Internet + do the weekly internet conferences she assigns
- Geography: I don’t pay attention +… Do I even have homework for this class?
Emotional work:
- Crying because I’m tired
- Crying while watching TV shows on the Internet
- Crying because I’m laughing so hard from wall posts left by my friends on Facebook
- Drinking coffee
- Having an Advil to suppress my stress headaches
- Sleep

There is a point to this. This experiment shows that I am on the Internet practically… a lot of hours a week. The time I go on the Internet, even if it’s for one minute, I am acting in favour of Net neutrality – I want to access every website available on the Internet, and I don’t want any restrictions. As shown in the breakdown above, I use the Internet for a wide variety of topics, and to be able to browse these individual topics, I cannot have restrictions on what I can and cannot use on the Internet.
In his book “Free Culture,” Lawrence Lessig writes about Jesse Jordan, a Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute student, who was fined $15,000,000 by the RIAA for being a pirate (the kind that isn’t like Jack Sparrow) by creating a search engine similar to Google. “They claimed he operated a network and had therefore ‘willfully’ violated copyright laws” (Lessig, 50). Although Jordan was not being compensated for his search engine, the RIAA claimed that what he had created was breaking copyright laws, and he had to pay for the damage. Obviously, Jordan didn’t have $15 million, so the RIAA took his life savings of $12,000 instead.
It doesn’t make much sense; Jesse Jordan was running a free-of-charge website to help other students like himself, and was claimed to be breaking copyright laws. The Internet – which is only existent because websites are created and used – is no longer a helpful tool, which was its original intention. Now, because copyright laws play a major role in the Internet (and will continue to grow), the public has to be afraid of being pirates. We, the public, pay monthly fees toward our Internet access, but now it’s not enough. Even though Jordan paid for his Internet access, he was restricted to what he was able to do – a restriction that cost him everything he had.

Lessig, Lawrence. Free Culture The Nature and Future of Creativity. New York: Penguin (Non-Classics), 2005. Print.

WWJD? I think he’d use his super powers to make every GE employee as attractive as Alec Baldwin.

Media Hegemonies/Mapping Who Owns What: Identify a Major Media Company and research what it owns. Discuss the implications of cross media ownership.

Need a light bulb? Choose General Electric.
How about a new oven? General Electric is here.
Do you watch WNBC news? GE owns it.
Do you need a reliable aircraft? General Electric creates the most efficient aircraft engines.

General Electric owns so much junk (it’s not really “junk,” but I think you catch my drift). For one, they own NBC, and most of the networks attachments. They also own Universal pictures and their recreational park. Here are a few things I didn’t know, and probably most people don’t know, they own:
àGE Aircraft Engines
àGE Commercial Finance
àGE Consumer Products
àGE Industrial Systems
àGE Insurance
àGE Medical Systems
àGE Plastics
àGE Transportations System
àOxygen (literally because it’s an NBC Universal Television Studio, and metaphorically because they own so much that it makes this point funny)

“It is critical that consumers of media in democratic societies understand the origin of information and the process by which it is mediated, particularly when they are being deceived” (Dowie, 4). In the book “Toxic Sludge is Good for You,” Mark Dowie, author of the Introduction of the book, describes in a short informative essay, the roll of a Public Relations consultant. Obviously, his viewpoint is against Public Relations, therefore he creates a bias perspective for the reader. Some of his writing, like the quote above, can be expanded on, and related to all media; most importantly it can be related to General Electric.

Every product and industry that General Electric owns will, obviously, promote General Electric. Obviously, that is the motive of every major company; but how do you feel about General Electric owning both television and aircraft engines. Would you feel safe knowing that the company that makes your microwave ovens is the same company that equips the airplanes you fly in? I hope to God that they don’t use the same technology for their airplanes, as they do for their microwave ovens.

It’s very frightening, but let’s take a look at a scenario: Let’s say you are flying in an airplane, which is owned by GE. During the flight, you get served a sandwich for lunch. At the same time you start to eat your sandwich, the plane lands, and you accidentally swallow a piece of the plastic wrap it came in; plastic made by GE. You don’t realize that you’ve swallowed plastic though, so you get off the plane and try to find a taxi to go home. While waiting for a taxi, you burp up the plastic and start choking. A taxi man comes to your rescue, and drives you, in his GE car, to the hospital. While at the hospital, the doctors use GE medical equipment to get the plastic you’re choking on.

In this scenario alone, you have encountered GE four times.

That’s what GE owns.

Stauber, John, and Sheldon Rampton. Toxic Sludge is Good for You! Lies, damn lies and the public relations industry. Monroe: Common Courage, 1995. Print.

"Who Owns What ." Columbia Journalism Review. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. .

I love me, and I'll make you love me too.

Fake News: Discuss the implications of corporately-funded news/propaganda.

Corporately-funded news is complete bull poop. I mean, its excellent in the sense that it makes money, but complete bull in the sense that it's all bull. Corporately-funded news is always bias, and always manipulative, and it makes the reader see the way they see. And it's all because of money. In their eyes, the audience are beautiful, crisp, right-out-of-the-bank bills.

For example, say a certain political party owned a particular newspaper - they would obviously incorporate advertisements or articles to make other political parties look bad; helping them to raise in the polls.

Or, say a tobacco company owned a magazine - they would place cigarette advertisements in the specific spots for people to see.

In his book, "Sex, Drugs and Cocoa Puffs", Chuck Klosterman talks about how newspapers hire page designers to "direct the eyes of readers to the stories they need to see most" (Klosterman, 216). Corporately-funded news act in the same manner as these page designers - they direct the eyes of the readers to things that they need to see. This is a form of propaganda - it's not always truthful (in fact it's almost always factual), but it helps the corporation to increase profits.

"Truthfully, I'm not even sure the average consumer knows that people called "page designers" even exist, but these individuals dictate everything you read (and - more to the point - everything you don't). Intellectually, the newspaper industry is now controlled by guys like Mario Garcia, the consultant who redesigned The Wall Street Journal when it went to full color in April of 2002. In all likelihood, you have never heard the name Mario Garcia before today - yet he is the kind of man constructing your consciousness" (Klosterman, 215).

Klosterman hits this theory head on. These page designers, and men like Mario Garcia, tamper with the information they are giving you. If there is something that may show a view of the opposing side, it is immediately cut out, and if there is something that will make the corporation look amazing and brilliant, they make it the focal point of what you see and read.

It's all about money, and how they can make you spend it.

Klosterman, Chuck. Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs. New York: Scribner, 2004. Print.