Cultural theorists have written about two economies, one financial and one cultural. But I wonder as with the current controversy surrounding shlock jock Don Imus whether or not we can really separate the two. Within the financial economy at least three advertisers have announced intentions to withdraw their advertising support from the Imus program: Procter & Gamble, Bigelow Tea, and Staples office supply chain. As MSNBC decided to suspend airing of the program we could also say that General Electric owner of MSNBC also has for the time being withdrawn its economic support. The economics of syndicated radio are more complicated than this simple scenario for advertiser withdrawal suggests; there are plenty of advertisers, for example, including General Motors that have not as yet withdrawn their advertising from the program. Sometimes pop culture transcends the financial economy as controversies like the one Imus finds himself involved in enter the cultural economy. Think Calvin Klein Kiddie Porn, Heroin Chic. Think Benneton. One could suggest, perhaps, that within a capitalist economy there is a self-correcting mechanism: if demand for Don Imus remains strong then he will probably survive either over the airwaves or on satellite radio. However, if his listenership wanes or if the intensity of his current fan base lessens continuing interest on the part of advertisers may also become depleted. When it comes to culture we can see the cultural economy play out like a marketplace, although instead of trading shares on the New York Stock Exchange, trading in the “cultural shares” of Don Imus take place in the Blogosphere, talk television like The Today Show, among others as well as traditional media like magazines and newspapers. Day after day we can see in these various venues trial by pop culture. However, I do not think the financial economy operates separately from the cultural economy. Rather, I think they work together, not necessarily in tandem, but they reflect the complex nature of the players in this game of culture both corporate and political.Thursday, April 12, 2007
Don Imus: Trial by Pop Culture
Cultural theorists have written about two economies, one financial and one cultural. But I wonder as with the current controversy surrounding shlock jock Don Imus whether or not we can really separate the two. Within the financial economy at least three advertisers have announced intentions to withdraw their advertising support from the Imus program: Procter & Gamble, Bigelow Tea, and Staples office supply chain. As MSNBC decided to suspend airing of the program we could also say that General Electric owner of MSNBC also has for the time being withdrawn its economic support. The economics of syndicated radio are more complicated than this simple scenario for advertiser withdrawal suggests; there are plenty of advertisers, for example, including General Motors that have not as yet withdrawn their advertising from the program. Sometimes pop culture transcends the financial economy as controversies like the one Imus finds himself involved in enter the cultural economy. Think Calvin Klein Kiddie Porn, Heroin Chic. Think Benneton. One could suggest, perhaps, that within a capitalist economy there is a self-correcting mechanism: if demand for Don Imus remains strong then he will probably survive either over the airwaves or on satellite radio. However, if his listenership wanes or if the intensity of his current fan base lessens continuing interest on the part of advertisers may also become depleted. When it comes to culture we can see the cultural economy play out like a marketplace, although instead of trading shares on the New York Stock Exchange, trading in the “cultural shares” of Don Imus take place in the Blogosphere, talk television like The Today Show, among others as well as traditional media like magazines and newspapers. Day after day we can see in these various venues trial by pop culture. However, I do not think the financial economy operates separately from the cultural economy. Rather, I think they work together, not necessarily in tandem, but they reflect the complex nature of the players in this game of culture both corporate and political.Friday, February 23, 2007
Goodbye Old Pals
The ultimate power that fans have is the ability to change the channel. And, as you know from my previous post, I was so angered by what I thought was a cheap trick by the writers of Grey’s Anatomy that I swore off the program. I love some of the comments have tempered my anger over the week, but for now I’m sticking to my guns. I love the empowerment, but that doesn't mean I'm not sentimental. Thursday at nine, then, gave me the opportunity to catch up with my old pals at The OC. As you know this was the final episode, and I was a big fan from the very beginning. If you refer to my previous post, you know how I like my pop culture - neatly sewn up in the end. Yes, the ending was sapping. Ryan becomes an architect, and as he is leaving a construction site he eyes a boy in trouble. We know that Ryan will take the young lad under his wing the same way Sandy came to his rescue. And as for Sandy and Kiki, they had a baby girl, and moved to Berkeley so that Sandy could teach law. The program flashes forward to Summer and Seth’s wedding. Julie marries Ryan’s father and we see her sweet happy family wearing “team Julie” tee-shirts at her graduation ceremony. What a neat little package: Easy to watch; Easy to digest; I can rest easy knowing that all is well in the world of The OC. I can’t say that I always like this sort of pablum. But sometime--every once in a while--it’s nice to know that things work out - no complications, no cliff hangers, no death and destruction. Yeah, happily ever after. That’s the way I like my pop culture.Friday, February 16, 2007
Meredith: dead or alive? Either way, I’m appalled!
I usually write this blog as an academic, not a fan. But I am a fan of Grey’s Anatomy, and could not help--like many many fans I’ve read about--get emotionally involved in last night’s episode. For now, I've lost my academic perspective. Shonda’s blog reads as follows: “You all have some pretty strong feelings about this. I’ve been reading your comments. STRONG feelings. Which I respect. Grey’s is in its third season and we’re doing something a little…different. It’s about time we did. Because, just as I said when you all shouted your horror about the Meredith/George sex, I remind you that we writers like to follow the characters here and we try very hard not to make story just to make story. We like to have a point. Meredith being dead is about…well, you will see what it is about next week. She was in pain, this girl. And…
…okay, I don’t want to talk about that. Meredith being dead at the end of this episode. I can’t. Not yet.”
I have a personally policy that I usually apply to films. It goes like this: I don’t mind if a film takes me to a lower emotional point from which I came into the theater as long as the film delivers me back to that same emotional point or a higher one at the end. Films are a one-shot deal. Episodic television is another. For Grey’s to deliver its fans, like myself, to such a low point and leave us hanging for what may be three more weeks is emotionally upsetting. The little girl who was at the scene of the disaster who witnessed Meredith fall into the water, but who was so traumatized she couldn’t speak, was a stand-in for us viewers. We saw Meredith fall in the water too, but we couldn’t speak. We, like the little girl, were left helpless. If it turns out that Meredith is dead (more on that in a minute), then why drag it out? Denny was sick. He died over a long period of time; Meredith is either dead or she isn’t.
The little girl I mentioned above eventually turns up at Seattle Grace and is reunited with her mother. I think this serves as a metaphor for us. As a stand in for the viewer I believe we too will be reunited with Meredith. I don’t think Meredith is dead for reasons I’ll describe below. First, of all, remember at the beginning of the series it was McDreamy that described Meredith as saving him from metaphorically drowning because of his tortured love life. So, this becomes his turn to save her. He will realize how deeply he loves her and how much he needs her and the important role she plays in his life. This epiphany will change the nature of their relationship going forward. At the end of last night’s episode, McDreamy has been forced out of the ER to sit in the hallway helpless as others attempt to save Meredith. My guess is that next week, we’ll see him jump back in the game. She saved him. He must save her. Also, if you recall in last week’s episode, Meredith symbolically drowned herself in the bathtub; McDreamy walked in and again metaphorically saved her from her own tortured existence. So, I think this serves as a model for how this scenario will turn out. The docs at Seattle Grace won’t give up on Meredith, because fans won’t give up on her. Now we’re all in this together. Brilliant!
But I’m hurt either way. If Meredith is dead, then like when Marissa died on The OC, the show is dead. Can you imagine after three seasons Grey’s will end? No! So, I feel like, as a fan, I have been taken advantage of. I don’t like pop culture that manipulates me in such a way, as I said before to deliver me to an emotional place that is lower than where I entered. Because this is episodic television, perhaps I have to be patient. But this is TV--I can change the channel--and there’s always the Food Network where everything is predictable and the emotional range is much narrower. Speaking personally, I think what Shonda and the other writers have done is a recipe for disaster. It’s the next morning as I write this and my emotions are still raw. I can recall few TV experiences that have left me with this residual feeling. Perhaps in the next few days my emotional state will change for the better; after all, this is television I’m talking about here. But for now, I’m appalled!
If you want to read what others have to say about this read the Pop Candy blog the link to which is to the right of this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)