Ranthropologist

Tag: media

  • Brandwashing

    Brandwashing

    Raise your hand if you’ve never heard of breast cancer. How about AIDS? Do heart disease, leukemia, or diabetes ring a bell? You may not have been aware of ALS, or amylotrophic lateral sclerosis, until recently… although you probably have heard of its common name, Lou Gehrig’s disease. What about domestic violence? Are you just now realizing that sometimes people are the victims of violence at the hands of their significant others? I’m going to guess that you have heard of all of these diseases, and that you have known for a long time that there are people who assault and victimize their romantic partners. So why do I ask? Because apparently there are many big, brand-name corporations who want to “raise awareness” of these issues by selling you their products.

    The fact that corporations profit from these so-called “awareness” campaigns is not surprising. I have been wary for years of the now-ubiquitous October “pink ribbon” campaigns for breast cancer. And lest I be misunderstood, let me state right now that I absolutely support activities and charities that actually raise significant sums to help fight diseases or help the victims of domestic violence. Of course I want there to be cures for cancer and debilitating diseases, and of course I want the domestic violence victims to have the support and resources to escape abuse. But when brands and their corporate parents throw their weight behind these causes by offering their products for sale and promising that a portion of the proceeds will benefit the cause, I am skeptical and cynical. I don’t doubt that there are individuals within corporations who do care about these causes, but let’s be honest: big brands use their breast cancer campaigns to make money, bottom line – and to build a reserve of social capital by appearing to be a warm and caring champion for women rather than a corporate behemoth that is beholden to shareholders and the profit motive. Lest I seem too cynical, bear in mind that these breast cancer “awareness” campaigns frequently raise tiny fractions of money, but buy their corporate backers enormous – and unearned – goodwill from an uncritical public. These campaigns have been dubbed “pinkwashing” by those who see them for what they are. Take the NFL as one example: according to The Guardian, “The NFL is exploiting breast cancer for its own gain and setting a pathetic example for big business: with nearly $10bn in annual revenue, they have given a mere $4.5m to breast cancer research since the pink misdirection play began.” Ok, so $4.5 million dollars is not nothing; but it is a drop in the bucket for a megabusiness (or shall I say, an untaxed non-profit!) like the NFL – and the money they contribute comes from sales of merchandise to consumers, not from the NFL’s own pockets. Adding insult to injury, that money is only 8 percent of the total that is spent by consumers to buy the NFL’s pinkwashed merchandise.

    The NFL is actually the reason I bring up this topic in the first place. They have started a new “awareness” campaign regarding the socially conscious topic du jour: domestic violence. Their campaign – which I won’t link to, but which you can find on your own if you so desire – is called “No More.” In the article “No More, The NFL’s Domestic Violence Partner, Is A Sham,”Deadspindeconstructs the branding of causes by corporations in general and focuses on the NFL in particular. In the spirit of pinkwashing, I am dubbing this phenomenon “brandwashing.” No More is explicit in its acknowledgement that the NFL needed to “brand” its anti-domestic violence campaign. The article juxtaposes this with the origins of the red AIDS ribbon, which grew organically out of a desperate desire by early AIDS activists to bring attention to a plight that at the time was truly in need of awareness-raising. Of course now, AIDS is used by corporations to give a rosy glow of social consciousness to their brand in the same way that the pinkwashing of breast cancer does, and with just as little actual positive impact on the cause.

    Ultimately, the NFL is trying to get off easy with its cynical use of No More to “raise awareness” of an issue that people everywhere are already aware of; and in fact, are even more aware of in light of the NFL’s kid-glove treatment of the domestic violence (and child abuse and violent crime) perpetrators  in its midst. But to me, the most horrifying thing about this is that the “awareness raising” of the NFL’s domestic violence brand is based on selling merchandise and asking people to buy things rather than directly contributing to the cause they pretend to be concerned about (for a graphic arts take on this, see the powerful poster created by my friend David Bernie). Since when does buying a case for your iPhone, or a t-shirt, or a mug, do anything to help cancer victims or AIDS patients or those suffering from domestic violence? The Deadspin article puts it best: “What good this does for people in need of help isn’t always clear, but it’s great for the brands, because all they have to do is slap logos on a few products and/or advertisements and throw a few pennies to charity to make themselves seem socially conscious.” Let’s be clear: the NFL is brandwashing this problem to make it go away and make the league look good in the process, not because they care about domestic violence.

    Let me conclude by reiterating that I am completely behind honest efforts to raise money and do concrete things to solve some of our greatest medical and social problems – but brandwashing is not the way to do it.

    If you really want to do something to help end domestic violence, here are a few places to start. The best way to help is to donate money directly to the charity of your choice – or, if you can, volunteer. That will do a lot more than “raising awareness” by drinking coffee out of a No More mug.

    National Network to End Domestic Violence

    Safe Horizon

  • Daily Reads: Feeding the Trolls

    Daily Reads: Feeding the Trolls

    When I first discovered the website Jezebel, the writer Lindy West quickly became one of my favorite contributors. She is fiercely intelligent, incredibly funny, and delightfully straightforward. I loved everything she wrote for Jezebel. Lindy has moved on to writing for The Guardian, and in this piece she talks about what it is like to be targeted by online trolls. Most of you already know this, but an internet troll is a person who leaves anonymous comments, tweets, or emails that are meant to insult or provoke. Trolls can be incredibly vicious and degrading, and for West, who frequently writes about feminism, the trolls are also virulently misogynistic. She writes that she has developed armor to help protect her from commenters who talk about how they want to rape or kill her, but she also acknowledges the heavy burden these trolls place on her and her colleagues. The story West has to tell is disturbing but also, potentially, hopeful – it involves how she ended up having a long conversation with one of her trolls who had come to recognize the error of his ways. West does more than write about this remorseful troll – she also did a piece on her experience with him for This American Life, which you can listen to here. West’s article and the radio piece are really about much more than just her particular trolls; they are about the breakdown in civility that can occur in the modern online world, and what can happen when people are given anonymity. I think it is an important read.

    What happened when I confronted my cruellest troll

  • Daily Reads: Bored and Brilliant

    Daily Reads: Bored and Brilliant

    Today’s Daily Read is actually a challenge. I ran across an article called The Case for Boredom from the New Tech City podcast this morning and read about an experiment they are running called Bored and Brilliant. After reading about it, I decided to join the project. Here’s the deal: according to the podcast and article, people are spending an inordinate amount of time on their cellphones. Big surprise, right? Of course not – but what’s interesting is the research showing that we are stifling our creativity by never allowing ourselves to be bored. So Manoush Zomorodi of New Tech City decided to create the Bored and Brilliant project to see if people will sign up and participate during the first week of February to see if they can change their relationship with their phone. Now, I don’t feel like I spend that much time on my phone, but part of the project involves downloading an app that tracks your actual use. I think I’ll probably be surprised to find that I use my phone much more than I realize, even though I don’t use it for anything other than email, texting, and browsing the web (e.g. no time-sucking games like Candy Crush). But I also know that when I have a few minutes of downtime – even if it’s idling at a red light – my default urge is to grab the phone and see if I have any new messages or if there are any updates on Instagram or Facebook. I know many of my friends are doing this too – and I also think many of you may want to change your relationship with your phone. So I am challenging you to join me in participating in the Bored and Brilliant project. Click the link below to learn more about the project and sign up. I think it will be fun – and revealing!

    Bored and Brilliant: The Lost Art of Spacing Out

  • Shifting Perspective: Word Power

    Shifting Perspective: Word Power

    Consider the following brief life histories of two 18-year-olds:

    A was a sullen, withdrawn child. She seemed predisposed to depression early in life, and caused her parents concern when she would run through their house claiming she was being chased by invisible monsters. She had school friends, but at different times in her young life she considered a doll she made out of leaves; a rock; and a small glass bottle to be her closest friends and most prized possessions. By the time she reached sixth grade, her parents were divorced. A lived closer to the working class part of town than the upper middle class areas many of her classmates inhabited. At 13 she was smoking pot with older kids in the neighborhood and was busted at a local discount store for shoplifting. In high school, A held her own but had some difficulties. Math in particular gave her trouble, and she nearly failed freshman algebra, chemistry, and geometry. She participated in very few extracurricular activities and seemed to shift deeper into depression. At one point an incident with a kitchen knife and a suicide threat caused her parents to seek professional help for her. By 15, A had a boyfriend who was already out of school and spent most of her time with a group of older boys, staying out with them until the morning hours. As high school drew to a close, A’s guidance counselor told her that she would not gain entrance into the state university system because of her poor math grades. A did not apply to any colleges during her senior year. After high school graduation she found a low-level job as a receptionist.

    B was a precocious child who was reading adult fiction by second grade. In fourth grade she was allowed into the school-wide spelling bee – typically restricted to 5th and 6th grade students – because she had already completed the spelling and reading lessons through the 6th grade level. Junior high school saw B widening her circle of friends but also maintaining a reputation as an exceptionally bright student. In 8th grade she missed making the county spelling bee by just one word. By high school B was enrolled in honors courses and did well in them with little effort. She was one of only 3 students to earn the highest possible grade on the Advanced Placement exam in English. B was also an accomplished athlete, earning MVP honors for her performance on the swim team during her sophomore year. She participated in clubs as well, including the French Club, Key Club, and Oceanography Club. Her friends were mostly honor students who spent their free time enjoying board games and role playing games. During B’s senior year, her guidance counselor called her to his office to tell her that her score on the verbal portion of the SAT exam was the highest one of his students had ever achieved. At graduation, B chose to spend a year working at a local art gallery and saving money before starting college. She was accepted into a small but prestigious private college the following year.

    Now that you’ve considered the stories of A and B, where do you think they will each end up in life? A sounds troubled, while B sounds accomplished. A has been involved with drugs, crime, and older boys, while B spent her school years studying and participating in extracurricular activities. A was a mediocre student who was discouraged from college by a guidance counselor. B was an honors student who was praised by a guidance counselor and admitted to a prestigious college. Yet, A and B are so very much alike – so alike, in fact, that they are the same person: me.

    That probably wasn’t much of a twist for those of you who know me. The point I am illustrating here is the power of words. The details you pick out of a person’s life story can cause you to view them as a hero or as a villain; as a troublemaker or as a model student; as having a dead end path in life or as being on the road to a successful future. As I’ve said before, humans are pattern-seeking animals, and we don’t often look for all the contextual information we need to flesh out our first impressions.

    The power of words to change our views is something we should be very aware of. It is relevant to so much of what we hear, see, and read in the world today, particularly in news reporting. I bring this up because of the different ways in which people are represented and how subtle those word choices can be. This pertains, in the moment, to the case of Michael Brown (and a few years ago, the case of Trayvon Martin). What we read is what we see, and both of these dead black teenagers have been portrayed as potential thugs and gangsters (and also as angelic innocents). There are multiple examples of how the power of words shapes our perception of events. If you want to find them, there are many articles and commentaries you can read about how people of color are portrayed more negatively in the media than white people.

    I don’t particularly feel like dissecting the racial divide that still exists in our society in this post. Mostly I wanted to engage in the exercise of writing about my own life in two different ways. I challenge you to do the same, and to ask yourself how you might be portrayed if you were the subject of media attention. It behooves us to remember that every single person is more than a single event, a single photograph, a single conversation. They say there are two sides to every story – I say that’s the minimum. Let’s try to consider as many of those sides as we can.

  • Logical Fallacies: The Bandwagon Fallacy

    Logical Fallacies: The Bandwagon Fallacy

    When I was attending Humboldt State University in the early to mid-90s, I noticed that I was putting on some weight – the dreaded Freshman 15. To combat this phenomenon, I started getting regular exercise, joined a gym, and started watching my diet. It was right around this time that a new dieting trend burst on the scene: a massive proliferation of low- and non-fat foods, all of which were marketed directly to the consumer’s desire to lose weight while still being able to indulge in treats like cookies, ice cream, and chips. In particular, I remember the Snackwell’s brand of cookies and snack cakes in their trademark green packaging. I remember scanning the nutrition label and seeing that I could eat an entire package of vanilla creme cookies and only ingest 4 grams of fat. Eureka! It never occurred to me to stop and think about the wisdom of this approach. Did it really work? Well, it must – otherwise, why would everyone be buying these products?

    Welcome aboard the bandwagon fallacy. The premise is simple: if an idea is becoming popular, it must be true. The low-fat fad took off because so many people wanted to believe in its simple premise that removing fat from your diet would remove fat from your gut. As the idea gained in popularity, it gained in adherents, which further increased its popularity, in a nice little feedback loop. Bandwagons can form around all sorts of premises, tested and untested, but I find the ones that form around food to be quite fascinating. These fads seem to come and go: the high-protein Atkins diet was first popularized in the 1970s then faded, only to experience a resurgence in the 2000s. Of course, as people came to realize that the diet didn’t have the lasting weight-loss effects it promised, it lost its popularity as people abandoned the bandwagon. Yet, these ideas manage to persist. The same thing happened to the lactose-intolerance fad, and I strongly suspect it will happen to the gluten-free fad.

    When a bandwagon idea holds the potential for becoming a marketing bonanza, it explodes across a universe of products. This reinforces the bandwagon. Currently, gluten-free is the top dietary fad. It’s quite amusing to see products that never had gluten in them in the first place emblazoned with the GLUTEN FREE! label. I’ve seen it on products as ridiculous as soda and fruit snacks (although as an aside, it can also be quite shocking to discover all sorts of strange ingredients in prepackaged foods, so I suppose it’s always possible that a fruit roll-up could have gluten in it). The same thing happened during the fat-free fad. Other current bandwagon labels include organic, free range, cage free, all natural, non-GMO, RBGH-free, and other labels catering to the health-conscious (but sometimes logic-unconscious). Gluten-free still seems to be towing a full bandwagon, but the next wagon is rapidly filling with adherents. This is the anti-sugar bandwagon. I’ve lately been seeing a lot of ink spilled over the toxic hazards of our high-sugar modern diets, and I have absolutely no doubt that the marketing bonanza has already begun.

    Research is revealing that the causes of modern health problems are much more complex and intertwined than the simplistic healthy-food bandwagons would make it appear. I do want to stress that there is real research into some of the bandwagon fads I have mentioned. Sometimes the research supports the fad, sometimes it doesn’t, and often the results are maddeningly inconclusive. The Atkins diet has been thoroughly studied with mixed results, depending on what particular factors were the focus of the research. Lowering the amount of fat in one’s diet also can certainly lead to weight loss, but that by itself is not enough. People with celiac disease truly cannot ingest gluten without becoming severely ill, and some people may be able to handle wheat protein in their diets better than others. Organic foods have the benefit of lowering our exposure to potentially toxic pesticide and herbicide residues; however, some of the other popular adjectives for “healthy” food remain highly problematic because they are misleading. “All Natural” is a loosely regulated term that can be used by almost anybody. “Free Range” and “Cage Free” can mean only that the birds in question are released to a fenced yard for a short time each day or are crowded together in large facilities with no cages – but no natural light or ability to go outside. The research into GMOs and RBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) is unsettled and deserves a post of its own. Even the simple “calories in-calories out” approach is turning out to be much more complicated than we thought.

    The point of all this is that these issues are complicated and deserve critical review. The bandwagon fallacy encourages us to jump aboard because it’s easier to go with the crowd than do the hard work of researching an issue on the merits. Do your research and you may just find that the bandwagon is the right place to be – but it’s not because everybody else is there. If you choose to ride on the bandwagon, be sure it’s because you are confident in its origins and its destination – whether it’s about making food choices, social choices, or even pop-culture choices. Better yet, build and drive your own wagon!

  • Shifting Perspective: Kiddie Couture

    Shifting Perspective: Kiddie Couture

    On April 24, 2013, a building in Bangladesh known as Rana Plaza collapsed, killing 1,129 people and injuring 2,515. Rana Plaza housed several garment factories, in which workers – including children – were employed in manufacturing clothing for a variety of brands, including The Children’s Place, Benetton, and Walmart. The collapse triggered a wave of collective shock and outrage throughout the developed world as people were faced with the reality that working conditions in Bangladesh were poorly regulated, often dangerous, and beset with bribes, graft, and abuse.

    At the time of the collapse, the minimum wage for Bangladeshi workers was $38 a month. Following the collapse, international pressure and a series of worker strikes led the Bangladeshi government to raise the minimum wage to $68 a month, beginning on December 1, 2013. The real shock to many people in countries like the United States was having to face the fact that the reason we are able to buy $10 t-shirts and $19 jeans is because workers in places like Bangladesh make the equivalent of 39 cents an hour – and that’s assuming a standard 40-hour work week. In reality, Bangladeshi workers can labor for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. Of course, the cost of living in Bangladesh is much lower than it is in most parts of the world – but we are fooling ourselves if we believe that this is truly a living wage.

    I bring this up not because I have a solution for the wage slavery taking place in much of the economic periphery – I don’t. I bring it up because I think it’s important for people to have perspective. To that end, I offer the story that made me decide to rant about this topic. ABC news broadcast a story about a new trend in children’s clothing: renting clothes instead of buying them. On the face of it, I think this is a terrific idea. The company offers parents the chance to pay a fee to rent clothes for special events such as weddings instead of having to pay full price for an outfit that will probably only be worn by their child once, and which they will outgrow soon in any case. Great! Sounds like a wonderful way to reduce our impact! But here’s where I got fired up: the company in question, Borrow Mini Couture, only rents high-fashion clothing. They carry brands such as Moschino, Roberto Cavalli, John Galliano, and Fendi – brands that charge hundreds of dollars for a single piece of children’s clothing. The least expensive Roberto Cavalli dress on the website retails for $352 – and it’s sized for a one year old girl. You can rent it for five days for $98 – $30 more than the monthly minimum wage of a Bangladeshi garment worker.

    The ABC piece makes it sound like this company is a boon to parents who want to save money. That very idea makes me want to weep. It’s not about saving money. It’s about aspirational parents being able to say they dressed their tot in couture clothing. Now, I don’t know where these couture brands manufacture their clothes, but that’s not really the point. Even if they are made by workers who are employed in safe, well-regulated factories where they earn enough to make a dignified living, what does it say about us as a society that we would even consider paying hundreds (or thousands) of dollars for a single piece of our own clothing, much less the clothes for our kids? And what does it say about us that there are people who will spend $50 to $100 just to briefly rent a status symbol for their child (or more accurately, for themselves)?

    For the shift in perspective I wish to impart in this rant, I offer this 2-minute video produced by the Toronto Star of children working in the garment industry in Bangladesh. Juxtapose this video with the ABC story and, like me, you might just want to weep – and I hope, want to think about what this means for the world we live in.