Week 8: Celebrities and their Culture

Week 8: Celebrities and Their Culture

“Celebrities” some worship them like gods others cant stand them! There are all different types of celebrities, LeBron James is possibly the biggest sporting celebrity going around and on the contrary Kim Kardashian is arguably the biggest celebrity celebrity. Whilst their rise to the top was vastly contrasting once at their peak they all share a common goal; make as much money as possible. Some would call LeBron a sell out for such a photo, however LeBron is an athlete and athletes have an expiry date, with the threat of injuries and the ever demanding nature of his sport you never know what might happen, thus he needs to make as much as he can whilst making sure that he doesn’t overly damaging his image.

                                            

Turner suggests ‘that drawing such a close relationship between the celebrity and the in authenticity of componentry popular culture interprets a celebrity as a symptom of cultural change (Turner, 2004).[1] I think Turner makes a valid point here and he has my two celebrity examples to support his claim. Kim Kardashian is a beauty, however she is not your typical “size one gorgeous model” she is small and has a huge butt, she was one of the first to buck the “model look trend” and is reaping the rewards. LeBron James is also revolutionary different, a 6foot 8inc giant that moves like a butterfly, combine this with the ability to shoot and make the impossible pass, makes him definitely something we have not seen before.

---

[1]

Turner, 2004, Understanding Celebrity, SAGE Publications, California, pp.7

7 Million Journalist

Week 6: New Media “7 Billion Journalist”

With the advancements to technology, accessing Facebook, Twitter and YouTube has never been easier. Almost every kid in an affluent society walks around effectively with a computer, camera, video camera all of which fits into their pockets. The easy availability to social media sites has effectively made seven billion journalist and camera men/women around the globe, which in turn is leaving no one safe from public scrutiny. The consumption for these products is endless; Apple’s newest product the IPhone 5 “is set to become the best selling gadget in history”[1], and with “as many as 58 million units of the iPhone 5 may sell by the end of the year”[2], our thirst for the latest and fasted products is clearly evident.

Don’t get me wrong I love new technology, however, my issue comes from the social media side, to put it bluntly everything is becoming so over policed that we’re are essentially trying to live in a perfect and ethical world when in fact we’re the complete opposite. Take this YouTube video for example,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuIBj0R2ui4

Now I know that this individual uploaded this video himself or herself, but the fact that this little bit of harmless fun was reported to the police and the individuals involved were questioned is ridiculous. These so called “cyber police” who hide behind their computer screens projecting the highest of morals and ethics is pathetic, however as we move forward into a more scrutinized society with plenty more cameras ready to roll, we all need to think twice about our pranks/jokes as we too can easily find ourselves in trouble.

---

[1] http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/iphone

[2] http://www.theage.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/iphone

Culture & Globalisation

Week 5: Culture and Globalisation

Since the age of time humans have always been interested in exploring our boundaries and experiencing new frontiers, unlike in 1770 when James Cook charted his fleet to Australia discovering Botany Bay, we have the luxury of quick travel which can see you in another country 16 hours later whilst arriving on the same day as you left. This relatively cheap and easy form of travel has allowed globalization in terms of human migration to become prevalent in today’s society. Travelling I feel is a great Australian tradition, whenever you’re travelling around the globe you can always bet that you will run into an Aussie in almost every place you go. But I digress…

Globalization in forms of travel has allowed for culture to migrate and embed themselves in an already established society, whilst contrary to many opinions I believe this to be a good thing, for example Heathrow airport in 2011 had 69.39 million[1] people pass through its airport, (this mind you was a new record) with such a wide range of individuals visiting your country the experience and depth of knowledge each traveler can provided is invaluable to the development of your own country.

These lessons come in all forms, but food seems to be a common quarter we can all relate too, our different origins bring with it spices, flavors, techniques and passion. Perhaps we have taken this cultural migration to a new level as there seems to be a KFC or McDonalds on every corner, however the core concept of human travelling I feel is an important stage of development not only for ones self but for the country we visit and its people.

---

[1] http://www.heathrowairport.com/about-us/facts-and-figures

Week Four: Global Media

Week 4: Olympics An Advertising Event.

As the Olympics come to an end the late nights and sleep deprived Australian public will slowly fall back into their normal routine. Over the past two weeks we have being exposed to the best athletes in the world, all strutting their stuff setting new Olympic and World records. In conjunction with athletes, Major Corporation have also had a big couple of weeks, being a truly global event the opportunity to enhance your product on a world stage is unrivaled, however it does beg some questions, is it really worth it? How much are these companies spending, and has it really given the consumer the urge to actively seek out the product?

Lets take Coca Cola for example. A total of 11 companies each paid $100 million for the global marketing rights to both the summer and winter games (which were held in Vancouver). Coca Cola spent $3.3 billion on advertising in 2011 and a further $5.8 billion on marketing for it bottles, so a rather small splash of cash on a Global event such as the Olympics seems to be acceptable.

But what about the lesser-known brands is it really worth their time and money? Adidas spent $63 million to be a game sponsor, yet, thinking back to advertising during the games (and if you watched the coverage on channel 9 there was plenty of it) I cannot recall the Adidas brand on the podium/t-shirts/swimsuits etc etc at any stage. Yet the infamous Nike tick was seen everywhere. It begs the question should lesser names such as Adidas even delve into the monopoly of heavyweight advertisers in regards to the large Global events???

Reference:

http://www.investopedia.com/stock-analysis/2012/

Week Three: Global Media

Week Three: Global Media

The Media; private organization, run for profits, News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, Gina Rinehart, Fairfax, democracy/social control, entertainment, framing, the fourth estate.

Excuse my above rant but all the terms/individuals and above phrase all co-exist under the banner of “Global Media”. Australia is an interesting case study when it comes to media, unlike China and North Korea we have a diverse range of media outlets but if we look behind each papers namesake, a worrying trend appears.

I’ll cut to the chase Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp makes up 70% of Australia’s media, ranging from the Australian/Herald Sun to the Geelong Advertiser. Fairfax has 25% including The Age/Sydney Morning Herald and the Financial review to name a few. A study by Robert W McChesney (2008) showed that the average person “consumes a whopping 11.8 hours of media per day”.

 With individuals investing large amounts of their time into gathering information we must mustn’t be naive and assume everything we read to be correct. Only days before the 2007 Federal Election Kevin Rudd unexpectedly flew to New York to meet Rupert Murdoch. Apart from Kevin indulging at strip clubs, what else were these two power brokers scheming?  It must also be noted that Rupert Murdoch since starting News Corp, has had his papers writing positively in favor of most eventual winning Government.

The Media is an extremely powerful tool, and is now widely regarded as the fourth estate, framing issues as they please. The proposed takeover of Fairfax from Gina Rinehart is yet another example of an individual perhaps trying to impact her own agenda on Australian society.

Reference:

Robert W McChesney; Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in dubious times. (2008) 

Week 2: What the "Experts" say!

Week Two: What the “experts” Say.

Over the course of week two we have been provided with multiple definitions of the term “Globalization” , in this my second post whilst it might seem fairly boring I will critically analyze what the so called “experts” think.

The first definition I’ve chosen, comes from Albrow, (1990:45) it reads “globalization refers to all those processes by which the people of the world are incorporated into a single world society, global society.” When International Relations do-gooders get together and come up with concepts such as this, its no wonder Globalization students such as me struggle with the concept. When Albrow states, “incorporated into a global society” he must be having a laugh. There is no such thing as a “global society”, each individual nation when it comes to national interest all share only one interest, THEMSELVES.

Take the two safest Nations geographically speaking. They are Iceland in the Northern hemisphere, and New Zealand in the Southern. Both of these nations don’t have a serious enemy around the globe; both are more than likely to be attacked by penguins than neighboring states. However both have standing armies and are both joined to groups (Iceland NATO, New Zealand ANZUS), which in the event of an attack, will come to their aid. My observation of the term “globalization” isn’t a group of societies coming together, however more of a group economies coming together.

Reference:

Albrow 1990:45

Google 

Week 1: Is Globalisation affecting me?

When I hear the term “globalisation” I think of multi billion dollar State economies and large private corporations all vying for a world market thirsty for work, money and in simple terms trade on the cheap. In the scheme of things I am a fairly irrelevant 2^nd year Arts student, so I ask myself does this term (Globalisation) become impacted by my actions? My answer …. Yes!

In Nederveen Pieterse, 2004, Globalisation article, he states, “ Global advertising has risen from 39 Billion in the 1950’s too 256 billion in the 1990’s” and who is eating this up ladies and gentlemen? YOU & I.  The technology boom in the late 20^th century has allowed humans old enough to read, to become impacted by globalisation. For example, Apple, a massive corporation (fun fact, 2011 annual turnover was $111 billion), when they release a new I phone a simple click of my mouse will tell me everything I need to know about their product and how to get a hold of one.  They will have ads/pop ups/ Television commercials/links to website etc etc, all to engage us.

The key point I make is this, whilst major corporations and international institutions drive globalisation, the social forces/movements and consumer needs dictate how these powerful organisations go about their business. Therefore whist I am only ONE I hold some relevant power on a global level.  

Reference:

Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, ‘Globalization: consensus and controversies’, Globalization and culture: global mélange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 7–21

Trusty old Wikipedia.