Reception Analysis

I watched an episode of the The Office called "The Sting." The video was about a salesman who is taking clients from Dunder Mifflin. Jim, Dwight, and Michael set up a sting operation so they can watch Dan, the talented salesman, in action and get pointers on how to make a good sales pitch and see why he is so good. The secondary story-line focuses on Andy forming a band with Darryl and Kevin. The central message of this video is hard to pinpoint. The Office always focuses on multiple stories and characters so it really almost depends on whose perspective you look at it from. I liked the video because I am a huge fan of the show and it happens to be one of my favorite episodes from this current season. The questions from the book focus on group interaction so I will focus on how I personally view my reactions in relation with the show. I do feel the that the show is an example of polysemy. It is open to many interpretations as I stated earlier. There can be an overlying main story-line throughout any given episode of The Office with many other small ones in place as well. In this example, the main story was the plan to set up a sting to view the sales pitch of Dan. Then, enter Andy's band, the situation regarding the dates that Pam and Dan went on, Meredith posing as a fake boss, etc, and there becomes a series of other developing stories and sub plots. Finding the main message is hard to narrow down in this episode and it tries to utilize lots of different angles to get the reaction. Sexual Humor, dry humor, musical humor, as well as others are all used to get laughs and tell the story. The is also such a varying degree of characters that can satisfy all different senses of humor.

This opens up Polyvalence. This occurs when an audience agrees with the what the text is about but have different end results and different personal interpretations. It comes down largely to encoding and decoding. Encoding is how one perceives a message from specific content, and decoding is the process of using a code to decipher a specific meaning. This is very relative to the Polyvalence one would encounter this when getting a reaction from this show. I personally watch this episode and am able to come to the conclusion that some of the core values demonstrated from the show are friendship, respect, and team work. I personally encode that interpretation based off the actions, relationships, and behaviors demonstrated by the characters and from the story line. Someone else may try to decode specific scenes, dialogue, facial expression, etc. to come up with a different end result than me. This is how Polysemy and polyvalence are relative to the show and my reactions.

2. I would most likely converge positively with other fans of The Office, and people with similar personality traits and similar sense of humor as me. This would make us interpretive communities. We would be a group that shares similar experiences, likes, values, social status, etc. Someone who likes The Office as much as I do may approach it in a similar way. They would catch the more subtle humor, or find some things funny that the average viewer would not. They would be able to see the progression and development of the characters over the seasons and the constant changes in plot. People who personally appreciate comedy over drama would be in the same interpretive community as me. If people like dry, goofy, immature humor then they would be bigger fans of the show and interpret it in a similar fashion. Going with that, fans of the show are in the same interpretive communities as the creators because according to the book, the communities that an author/producer/ creator belongs to also influence how that individual constructs the text initially. Audiences in the same communities as creators pick up on those projections as direction for understanding the text. Those outside of this specific community will not pick up the projections.

3. I personally used dominant code to analyze the episode of the office. I can say that because when I viewed this episode, my initial reaction was positive. Typically, if one responds positively to any given text, show, movie, or any other content in media, they are using dominant code. I was able to find the preferred meaning from this episode. The people that make this episode have a preferred meaning they want their audience to get, and use different codes throughout the episode to give "clues' you could say. I take those clues and piece them together to ultimately have a positive experience/interpretation of the show thus resulting in the use of dominant code. I am using the same code as the intended media producers because I obviously enjoy the show. I have watched every season and even own seasons on DVD, Netflix, and watch re-runs. Those producers are connecting with me and getting through to me at some level at least because I keep watching and enjoying the show. I get the humor, I understand the characters, and I care about what happens next. I am deciphering the meaning of the text and accepting it as the truth. I don't question it. Even if I may not enjoy one episode as much as the other I still watch it and look forward to it. All of this constitutes the reason I use dominant code when analyzing the episode.

Queer Analysis

1. The clip from Glee reinforces the ideals of heteronormativity because through its charecters and content, it perpetuates what the text refers to as the homosexual and heterosexual binary. For example, the show features the two male characters in the beginning openly talking about their sexual experience with women, and their sexual attractions to women. It enforces what we as a society identify as "men." They are two stereotypical, horny teenagers with sex constantly on their minds. They talk about their sexual conquests. This fits the physical image society would associate to enforce heteronormativity involving heterosexuality. The episode of glee also contrasts this notion of heterosexuality with their homosexual character. The whole time, you can see he is uncomfortable and doesn't seem like a "normal" student. He is bullied by a bigger, more powerful male who uses brute force to intimidate him. It is pretty much known he is displaying feminist or homosexual traits through his actions. They make him dress feminine, want to hang with the girls, along with other things typically associated with homosexual stereotypes. However, they really never openly state it or show him being intimate or talking about being intimate with a man. This reinforces the concept of heteronormativity because the theory claims that a person's sexuality is largely internal and clear manifestations occur behind closed doors. When the character finally sits down with his teacher in a private meeting and admits to be being gay, it is then revealed to us officially. Just having this use of "normal" heterosexual characters contrast with the "abnormal" homosexual one further perpetuates heteronormativity. We need one to understand the other. The norm wouldn't exist without the abnormal. This is also referred to a sexual othering.

2. The stereotypes of heterosexuality are the two teenagers talking about hooking up with girls, and having trouble getting them to go further with them. They stereotype there heterosexuality by thinking of things that do not arouse them so they can "perform" better. The one teenager specifically thinks of the masculine looking gym teacher as a turn off. There is the dumb jock who picks on the "different" kid. The character who has just got out of jail or juvie or whatever it was was a good example because he is represented as a tough looking macho guy who is trying to get chicks. Some stereotypes of homosexuality or when the gay character wants to be in the girls group and sing popular women's songs. He wants them to dress in furry boas and feminine clothing. He also has very feminine features like a high voice and is well dressed and manicured. Gender clarity and gender ambiguity is a definite stereotype. All of the heterosexual characters have a clear role and fit in the story while the main homosexual character is somewhat lost throughout the episode. The natural/deviant stereotypes could come into play because they make the heterosexual characters so straightforward, typical, and masculine. The mean bully wearing his letterman's jacket is so typical. While the character with the mohawk doesn't fit the traditional standards of physical masculinity, his personality sure makes up for it. I don't think Glee uses the homosexual character as a villain but one could say the simple fact that he is different makes him deviant.

3. This is a tricky one. I think the show links sexuality as a product of gender. Honestly, the book gets really deep in the gender and sexuality issues and my head is honestly hurting as a read these sections trying to rationalize and make sense of it. The book argues sex can be viewed as biologically fixed. There are theorists that agree and disagree. We seem to be born and raised with a social construction of gender, and our sexuality is based upon that. It really depends which side you choose to argue from. I think the show links the two very strongly. It is highly suggestive and does a good job of focusing on both genders and challenges the sexual "rules" based off those genders.Therefore, the show promotes heteronormativity because it demonstrates sexuality from all genders whether they are the normal or abnormal, further promoting the balance needed in heteronormativity.

4. The clip portrays sexuality as a personal identity. I would have to find it affirming based off the chapter. The chapter offers many theories of how sexuality and gender are portrayed and utilized in the media. I think this specific clip of glee utilizes their sexuality as a personal quality because it has contrasting views of sexuality. Each gender is portrayed differently sexually and there are many contradictions involving the sexual features and tendencies of each gender. All in all, think that theme runs solid with a lot of what the book has to offer. This is one specific example of a television show but another show or movie, or book may have a different representation of sexuality.

The Cleveland Show

1. The gender stereotype of sexual subject/object is displayed during the first seconds of the clip when Cleveland's wife is getting ready. She is checking her makeup and fixing her dress, specifically, pushing up her breasts, to make sure she looks presentable. The stereotype that women are to be objects of lust for men is shown here through her dressing up and making sure she still looks good, sexy, beautiful, whatever word you want to use here. The stereotype of active/passive is shown when the women claim men are only good for one thing, opening jars. This represents that women are not strong like men and can't physically open jars because it requires more strength. The cupboard full of unopened jars shows the women's inability to open them making them passive, and needing the "active" strength of a man. Another stereotype that stuck out was the conversation Cleveland had with his blow up doll. This is the logical/emotional stereotype. I also consider it to be public/private. It is logical/emotional because Cleveland, as a man is controlling the conversation, making decisions like stating he won't have to choose between his friends and his wife and saying he will kill her if she tells on him. He is then purposely utilizing the gender stereotypes with his doll by making her emotional saying she will tell on him, and would rather die than be without him. The public and private stereotypes come into play here because Cleveland is the dominant one in this conversation being represented as strong and in control, while his doll is passive and weak. This is Cleveland's manifestation of what he thinks is the appropriate relationship between a male and female. It just so happens to fit in perfectly with the gender stereotypes the book discusses. The best example of gender stereotypes listed in the book is the scene in the club. This scene represents the sexual subject/object best. Cleveland's wife and her friend are at the club and are approached by a man who gets in between them and says "Oreo Alert!" He then smacks them on the butt. This is the quintessential use of sexual subject and object, It represents the male seeking out the woman and being pursuant of sexually conquering her. It also shows the women as sexual objects of the male's desire.

2. A possible example of another gender stereotype not discussed is the conversation between Cleveland's wife and her friend. Her friend is explaining how her and her husband are arguing over custody of the kids, and the punch line is that her husband still wants her to take them. Typically, the women want custody over the kids and the mother usually gets custody. Also, the argument is usually over who wants the kids. This example shows two stereotypes being displayed, one is the argument over custody. The second is the fact that neither parent, especially the mother, doesn't want them. The scene where the baby is practicing stacking the cups is another example of gender stereotyping. He claims he will never get out of the ghetto because his talents at cup stacking or whatever it's called are not good enough. This plays with the stereotype that a lot of young african american males utilize special talents to make a better life for themselves, and get themselves out of a bad neighborhood. Rappers always talk about how they saw a chance to improve their life with their musical talents. They wanted to et out of the ghetto and buy their mom a nice house somewhere. It is a very common subject in their lyrics. Talented athletes do the same thing so they can go to college and remove themselves from their situation. You always hear about how professional athletes credit their sport of choice for keeping them out of trouble and helping them succeed.

3. I think this whole scene ultimately is an example of gender reversals. It focuses primarily on Cleveland's wife sneaking around behind his back. She is lying about where she is going, coming home late, and finding "creative" ways to change the subject when confronted by Cleveland. The scene where Cleveland is out to dinner shows him being the emotional one whereas normally the women take this role. He is shocked and hurt by finding out his wife really didn't come over for tv night and lied about where she was. He then becomes emotional and insecure questioning where she was. The scene when she comes home drunk and he is waking up confronting her whereabouts demonstrates a role reversal. There is a example of female assertiveness that is not common throughout this text. The woman are empowered claiming they don't need men, they are the assertive ones. The best example of this is the two women sticking up for themselves while being hit on even going so far as to stab the man's hand and laughing about it. The overall theme was that Donna was in control, and Cleveland was the emotional one not sticking up for himself.

Rhetorical Analysis

I am basing my questions off the "Army Strong" video

1. The key signs in this text are strength, courage, teamwork, and hard work. The video is able to portray those signs by clustering other signs around them. I was able to distinguish these signs because of their prominence, repetition, and intensity throughout the video. These signs are demonstrated by the statements, and images being said throughout the video. Statements such as, "I am a warrior," "I will never quit," "I will never accept defeat," and "I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough" are all clustering signs that further reinforce the main signs. The images of soldiers working together, doing drills, and performing in the field are clusters that accompany the signs. The thing that is most strategically absent from the text is the deliberate statement of the message that is being portrayed. Instead of coming out and saying that the Army is badass, you have to a tough SOB to be in it, and it will help you grow as a person, they use these signs and clusters to inform the viewer and let them interpret the message. The saying "There is strong, and then there is Army strong," is the biggest cluster of the overall message

2. The formal appetite is created through the repetitive form of the text. The overall message is restated in different ways, with different images, statements, and actions. The use of this builds suspense, pride, and interest. The aesthetics come into play with this as well. The music is very "majestic" and powerful to accompany the video. Certain parts of the video have many people shouting in unison which makes the message more powerful. The editing is done to build the appetite as well. They are resolved at the end with the final message signifying what "Army strong" is.

3. Three other messages taken from the video are that both men and women are important to the army. There is a very wide range of different people and positions that contribute to the US Army. Finally, you have to be a strong individual because the tasks required of you are very demanding. This is similar to the other signs because it shows that it doesn't matter what sex, age, race, rank, or position you are in the Army; you still need to be strong and you still can contribute. The expectations these messages foster are the same as any of the other messages. The text is just expanding on those key signs to appeal to a broad audience.

4. The story being told is that there are people from all over the country doing their part in the US Army. There are many jobs and opportunities for you in the army. However, it takes a special person to participate, and it turns you into a special person at the same time. You need to have certain traits to be in the army. Once you are in the army, you must abide by certain rules, morals, and values. You must be better than the average person and be the best at what you do. They key events and characters fall under the same umbrella. The are the actions being performed and the people doing them. They are both kernals. Without them, the message is gone. I can make a video saying how strong the army is and how important it is but if the people can't see for themselves, then it gets lost. There is no replacement for the men and women in this video saying and doing what they are doing. The discourse in this video is composed of nothing but statements. The story is being told with the dialogue. The important part is that there is no conversation, no information, no advertisement, it is just statement after statement beginning with the word "I." The narration is from the soldiers in the army. It is told from their perspective. These would be homodiegetic narrators.

Assignment 3

(1). How does Stewart and Colbert explicitly and/or implicitly parody the four biases as described and outlined by Bennett in this chapter?

I believe that both Colbert and Stewart use the four biases in their shows. Their shows are made famous by their informational bias, or the way their stories are told on their respective shows. They choose to utilize things like cyniscm, parody, and sarcasm when discussing political issues during their shows. It is their trademark and why people watch. They are expecting this, but what the average viewer may not realize is that both Colbert and Stewart are specifically utilizing the four biases of personalization, dramatization, fragmentation, and Authority-Disorder. I'll start with how I feel Colbert uses the biases.

Colbert is famous for taking a very hands on, cynical approach to the news. In my opinion, there is a very explicit use of these biases within Colbert's show. His whole goal is to mock and ridicule the current political issues facing the country. Personalization is used throughout the show focusing on specific political figures such as Obama, and McCain. The whole segment involving the search for King Tut's penis is a perfect example of how these biases are used. We have personalization again with the use of first person interviews, and expert opinions by Dr. Silverman and by Colbert. There is a singling out of the issue of the penis which in my opinion is a parody of the fact that focusing on such specific items and individuals in a story takes focus away from bigger, broader, issues that get lost. He uses personalization by making other specific attacks at the Secretary General of Antiquities claiming that their is a conspiracy with the disappearance of King Tut's penis. I think Dramatization is fairly obvious in this scene. Colbert's whole conspiracy theory is an example of the bias of dramatization. Picking only the stories that will excite people, or focusing on parts that keep people interested is key in the news. Colbert does this by beating a dead horse so to speak by consistently coming back to the issue of the missing penis and making it a big mystery. Fragmentation is used in his jumping around from story to story within the investigation of the missing penis. He focuses on the cartouche box for a while and asks if they had "cartouche bags." Then shifts his attention to the metal hinges on the box. Fragmentation is the tendency to treat stories as unrelated events and isolated incidents. He is jumping from story to story to demonstrate the unpredictability of the news and wants to make it appear chaotic. Finally, Authority-Disorder is used to give a sense of tension or conflict. His conspiracy theory shows a disconnect with the people in charge of King Tut's tomb and the people "Searching for the truth" about his "missing penis."

In the Daily Show, I think a great example of the use of personalization was the Clinton montage. Stewart uses name association to focus on Clinton as an Individual. The first montage was very positive for Clinton. It focused on past clips of precious political figures and news anchors praising Clinton. This makes you think Clinton was a great guy and great president. It is taking clips out of context to build the character and legitimacy of Clinton while showing the legitimacy of his candidacy and the government under him. Another montage did the exact opposite. They took a lot of previous clips out of context to besmirch Clinton's character. Stewart did this exact same thing again with Ronald Reagan. I think dramatization is best demonstrated with the video of how his presidency will be remembered with the series of images like Jaba the Hutt, the White House Exploding, and dark, scary music to represent his legacy as a villain. This is the strategy of Stewart to focus on one famous president, in this case Reagan, while giving a biased opinion in a dramatic way to catch people's attention and make them laugh. I feel a good example of fragmentation comes with the story of the "Don't Ask Don't Tell Campaign." Stewart stops and focuses on the good looks of Mrs. McCain who was advocating for the rights of gays within the military. This takes the focus off the actual story which is a common strategy of fragmentation. This is done throughout the show when they talk about Mrs. McCain being hot or referencing women's "gozangas". I think Authority Disorder was prevalent in this episode. He uses the Don't ask don't tell campaign to single out McCain and show him out of touch with his military leaders, and the studies done involving the campaign. He uses conflicting statements and clips from McCain to prove his point. He sets up his arguments by proposing questions like "What kind of study did you want?" He then shows McCain talking about a study and Stewart emphatically claims that was the name of the study. This is done to make McCain look like an idiot. It is a clear way of using Authority-disorder.

Assignment 2

(A) Why study media? Why have you chosen to be a media student/scholar?

First of all, I chose to be a media student because of my major, which is audio producton. Media studies are a big part of audio production because one needs to understand how media is distributed, consumed, and produced in every aspect possible. The more one knows about media studies the more information they will be able to take into the next step of their career. In my case, knowing about the media industry is very relative to audio/music production. It is a business and to know how to be succesful in that business I need to know how that business operates. Specifically, How is music produced, consumed, distributed, etc? How does it compare to other facets of media such as broadcast journalism, publishing, video production? Understaning the flow and heirarchy of the media as an industry as much as I can will be very beneficial. Also, it is hard to deny that the media is in our lifes more and more everyday. From smartphones and their applications to things like facebook and twitter, we are able to access information quicker and easier than ever before. The media is changing and we must be able to keep up. This things go into the reasons I choose to be a media scholar.

(B) What have you learned so far as a media student? How does media inform your life (or work)?

I have learned many things throughout my years as a media student. I have learned how the media affects things in my daily life, politics, entertainment, and how it shapes and distinguishes our culture. I have also learned a lot about how the media is utilized in other countries. We are a technilogically based media society. Media sort of shapes most of our lives. We have one of the most advanced media systems in the world with many layers to it. Millions of Americans wake up every morning and turn on the news to get things like weather information, political information, and local news. Millions of Americans check sites like ESPN, Facebook, Twitter, TMZ, or other popular sites everyday to get their daily fix of information that may not be 100% vital to their day like looking at the stock market or weather might be. At the same time, we are evolving and putting more and more useful information out to the masses with these different social networking sites and pieces of technology. The mediums are there to relay information to people.

Media is also an important part of our entertainment. People are getting better cable packages with HD channels, sports packages, etc. DVR and Tivo have become huge and almost a must have for many Americans. There seems to be a new smart phone coming out every week promising a "Faster" and "easier" life using said phone. This shapes us as a culture at the same time. We have become a culture with a very short attention span. In this fast paced world, we don't give things a lot of chances because there is always something right around the corner ready to catch our attention. Our consumption of media and freedom within the media is really unrivaled throughout the world. We have a very democratic media system when compared to other countries. The most important thing to know about the media is that it is always changing and will continue to do so.