Week 12 Readings

Happy Sunday, everyone.

This week we had the Sternheimer reading as well as some other outside readings. I’ll start with Sternheimer. I did find this week’s chapter topic interesting. As someone who falls into the age group of those who seem to “party”, I was excited to read Sternheimer’s take on why media portrays teens and even college students as those who do a lot of drinking and smoking. Once again, Sternheimer made it very clear that there are always more factors at play than those the media focuses on. This was seen on when she discussed the link between teens and smoking, saying that there is an association, but not necessarily a casual connection (Sternheimer, 2013, p. 224). She also said that the differences in education and socioeconomic status are important factors that determine who smokes (p. 226). In the next section about alcohol, I noted that Sternheimer said that positive beliefs about drinking are the most important factor when it comes to teen drinking (p. 233). I think this is very true and is something I have experienced during my time in high school as well as now in college. My family is not big on alcohol and usually focuses more on the negatives associated with it rather than the positives. I never ever drank as a teen and I’m sure my parents’ views played a big part in that. None of my friends were big drinkers either, so my beliefs were not changed very much at the time. I found Sternheimer’s comment that adults need to teach moderation (p. 234) very nicely put. I don’t think parents always realize what an impact their behavior makes on their children and that the way they behave will usually be mimicked by their kids.  Another comment that I liked was that “society encourages better living via chemistry” (p. 239). This is so true and I never thought of its connection to legal and illegal drug use/abuse. Think of how many ads we see promising us a thinner waist, a healthier and better body? I also see this in terms of psychiatry, as a lot of people believe that antidepressants and the like can be a cure all to their problems. It makes a lot of sense to me that people would seek out other drugs that could also work to make their lives better, even though they may cause more damage or may be illegal. Lastly, Sternheimer discussed the relationship of substance abuse and social structure, saying that pop culture is not necessarily central to the understanding the key factors that predict substance abuse (p. 240). I wish I could have several adults read this section of the chapter. As we have come to know, pop culture and the media rarely accurately depict things like drug use and substance abuse (perhaps with the exception of shows like Intervention, but even then  who knows how much is “reality” television). I completely agree with this last piece of the chapter and thought it was a nice way to tie the discussion back into the relationship between drugs/alcohol and the media. What were your takes on it? Did you agree or disagree with her statements? Am I blinded by my lack of partying ways?

Now, on to the fun stuff.

 (This is one of my favorite Banksy pieces, done during his month-long residency in  New York City a year or so ago. The idea was to have a paradise amidst the crazy and hectic city life, a place of calm and tranquility that was mobile. I found it really beautiful and this photo really captures the idea behind it, rather than ones of mobs of photographers trying to get a glimpse.)

I am a really big street art aficionado, so when I saw the extra readings for this week I got really excited. I do think that Kaia proposed a really interesting question: how does this kind of “art” relate to media education? Is it helpful or hurtful? I have been following Banksy for a long time now, so my opinion may be a bit different. I do think that at a time, this kind of “street art that makes you think” thing was really great and actually was helpful towards media education. I think this art can point out the problems that we don’t want to hear about, the ones that the media doesn’t focus on it. For example, earlier this year Banksy did a series of pieces in Gaza, drawing media attention not only to his work but to the situation going on in the Gaza strip. In the Ron English clip, he had many anti-media sentiments (“The media is the massage”, “Shop while they drop”) (Wrayer-Battle For A Free Mind, 2006). However, I do think recently people have begun to focus less on the message and more on the price of the work or the experience of being witness to it (especially in Banksy’s case). I think this really distracts from what once was (and still kind of is) a really interesting commentary on media literacy. Nowadays, the media frenzy surrounding the reveal or finding of a new work by artists like Banksy is not about what the piece says, but about who will become the owner of it. This is almost a subversion of what these people set out to do with their art, which I find kind of funny. I see this, especially with Banksy’s Dismaland. I remember reading about it a few months ago and I absolutely loved the idea. I felt as though Banksy was poking fun at consumer culture and contrasting the beauty and pristineness of Disneyland with this dirty and run down wasteland. However, the media focused instead on how many people had bought tickets and how temporary the place was (so people should be concerned about whether or not they could go and see it in person). I’m really interested to hear everyone else’s thoughts on this part of our reading. Do you think it is helpful or harmful? Has anything by these artists made you stop and think, especially about media?

(Probably my favorite Dismaland piece )