Posts Tagged ‘Media’

What does Tajder mean when she says “Bimbo”

Friday, March 5th, 2010

Because it is now being discussed about what I meant when I said “Bimbo” during the discussion on Club 2, here a definition from Wikipedia, just to avoid any misunderstandings:

“Bimbo is a term that emerged in popular English language usage in the early 20th century to describe a physically attractive but unintelligent woman.”

Bimbo got stuck with me as the name for the over-sexualised, unnaturally perfect (or über-perfect) image of women that we have been bombarded with by the media in recent years. I got the name from the game called Miss Bimbo, which was launched two years ago and made a huge furore because it was targeted to 9-16 years old girls while the task was to “make your Bimbo (avatar) the sexiest, richest and most famous Miss Bimbo in the world”. This was to be done via shopping, beauty treatments, diets and plastic surgery. To do this, Bimbo needed money, which she gets, among other, from her boyfriend “Your boyfriend will (hopefully) give you some money every day. Because he loves you.”

First launched in France, the game reached 1,2 million users within few weeks. I wrote about this phenomenon in my article “Happiness is Just a Makeover Away” which was published in The Vienna Review in August 2008. Due to bad publicity and raging parents, the game has been somehow changed. Now, for instance, the task is to „Become the hottest, coolest most intelligent and talented bimbo the world has ever known!”  But Miss Bimbo is still a bimbo…..

For more information, go to www.missbimbo.com

Coma in a coma

Thursday, January 14th, 2010

We have an overdose of catastrophes. I wonder how much we really need of the global media. Just few days ago, I was sitting in Tirol finally enjoying some peace when I turned on CNN and saw a volcano eruption in Philippines. And I thought “How horrible, but sorry, I just don’t want to know”. I can’t process all of that. The world has always been full of wars and natural catastrophes but people were only aware of the ones that struck them. Now we have to digest every singe ounce of pain happening on any single spot of this planet. Whenever you turn your TV on or open newspapers, some disaster will jump on you. It is too much. We just cannot absorb that amount of tragedies. As Nietzsche, said “if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

The possible results are: either we get immune, or we get swollen by the abyss. None is good.

Virtual Pollution

Monday, December 7th, 2009

Finally it is my time to bitch about Facebook! Our love relationship has turned into a love-hate relationship. I like(d) social networks. I am home in two different countries. Also, I went to an international school and an international university, and later worked in international business (woha, check this international chick out), so my friends are scattered all around the world. The networks are the the easiest way to keep in touch. So, I am everywhere: Facebook, Myspace, Linkedin, Xing, Small World, Internations, Twitter and some other site whose name I forgot. And yes, I admit, I have 390 friends on Facebook. And no, I don’t know them all – some of them are my readers who have expressed the wish to become my virtual friends. Virtual. That part is slowly fading away. But it is important because that is where the problem hides.

Few weeks ago, I posted  my dilemma about switching to Mac on Facebook. Within only few hours, I had 29 comments. Passionate comments. People were arguing and kept returning to see what the others replied. Last week, I posted that I was stuck at home with swine flu. Comments? 0. Zero. Welcome to the world of virtual friendships.

There is one slight problem with virtual friendships. No, three slight problems. Or more… One: We are spending more and more time in social networks. Meaning wasting time we could be spending in the real world, and also wasting money. CNN estimates costs of $2.2 billion a year due to the loss of productivity caused by time spent on networking sites. Problem number two: we are getting seduced by virtual friendships, maybe even allowing them to weaken the importance of the real friendships. What I learned with my post on having swine-flu is what sociologists are calling the phenomenon of “weak links”. We think we have 388 friends who are sharing our lives. We don’t. We have 388 virtual pan-pals who are only here when they want it. “Strong link” is my neighbour Markus. He fed me through closed door (yes, like you would feed a beast) while I was ill.

And what struck me most is that the social networks are strongly changing the way we begin romancing (and eventually end up having sex), which has a huge impact how we view and present our lives. Last two guys I met (yes, I admit, they were [much] younger than me) asked me for my Facebook contact. Phone numbers, even e-mail addresses, are passé. Hello, this is a revolution in our dating pattern! We used to get in touch so that we could get to know the person and see if we like him/her. Now, everything is upside down –we first get to know (the virtual) person, then we decide if we like him/her – and then we get in touch, or don’t. We are making decisions based on the ones-and-zeroes identity of the person. Dangerous. Because in the virtual world, what is missing is… yes, the real thing. Everyone is more or less same, and everyone can create the identity they chose to (do you really think I look like my Facebook pic?). We start thinking of our lives in terms of how presentable they are online.  How alienating is that?

I don’t know. I just know I’m cutting this thing to a minimum. I have already trained myself to only log on once a day. And I’ve introduced Facebook-free days. Mostly I combine them with news-free days. They are fantastic – suddenly life seems so easy and uncomplicated! You only have to remove the rubbish of other people’s destinies… Sorry, we’re just too many.

Media Objectivity & Business in Iraq

Sunday, November 22nd, 2009

Ask me where I’ve been in April, I don’t know. Mars? Strange how I’ve missed this one, but I guess it is never too late. The 2009 Pulitzer price for investigative journalism went to David Barstow of The New York Times for his story about how dozens of retired US army generals who were working as radio and TV analysts for major US media were co-opted by Pentagon to make its case for war in Iraq and how many of them had undisclosed ties to companies that benefited from policies they defended. Reading Barstow’s articles helps understand why war in Iraq and what proportions the business deals in an occupied country can take.

I wonder more and more who really bombed the towers…

From “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand”:

“But in the summer and fall of 2006, even as he was regularly asked to comment on conditions in Iraq [on CNN], General Marks was working intensively on bidding for a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq. In fact, General Marks was made president of the McNeil spin-off that won the huge contract in December 2006.”

Here his two stories:

Barry McCaffrey’s World

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

Without Models

Thursday, October 8th, 2009

Here is a big applause for Brigitte, Germany’s most read women’s magazine!

From 2010, they are banning models from their pages – all editorials will we done with normal (I would rather say “average”) women. This is a fantastic step in the direction of  boycotting the artificially created image of the impossible beauty perfection which so strongly destroys not only women’s self-esteem but also men’s criteria.

Now, if they would also ban Photoshop, the job would really be done. I hope more magazines (and also the advertising world) are to follow. Let’s start liking the natural (and possible) us.

For more information go to: Bigitte

models-logo

Hair II

Saturday, August 8th, 2009

Few days ago, I read a statement in Grazia (British fashion& gossip magazine) saying that women can relax because it is now “allowed” NOT to have a Brazilian – now we may leave a stripe of hair down there. This had left me strange feeling: I wondered who has the right to dictate how that what I have between my legs should look like. And then, I grabbed Spiegel, Germany’s highly respected political magazine, to find a three page article about the newest fashion dictatorship of body-hair removal. And yesterday, I had a body-hair discussion with two female friends. The topic was sparked by our visit to a newly opened, stylish and expensive waxing studio. We were all surprised to see the price list was divided in two identically big halves: women and men. Which made me angrily protest (again) against men depilating their body hair. Men with moderate body hair are sexy – hair gives them the manly touch that clearly differentiates them from women. There is something gayish (yeah, call it meterosexual if you like), insecure, even childish to shaved chest. And then there is something very uncharming to it when it starts growing and turns into tiny black, unattractive, stubbing spikes. Why the hell would you ever do that to yourself? Have women really been so successful in hiding the pains of hair removal and hair re-growth? Maybe we made a mistake – had we confronted men with our legs, arm pits, bikini-zones and arms full of black stubby hair, maybe they wouldn’t have been so stupid to start depilating their bodies.

But let’s get serious here. The discussion about the removal of male chest-hair is not a discussion about a beauty norm or personal preference. It is a discussion about manipulation, about distraction, about consumerism, about fake liberty. In today’s world, when we are rapidly tuning towards living in “The Brave New World” or “Matrix”, the discussion about male body hair is a very important discussion.

Men depilating their body-hair is yet another step towards continuously blurring boarders between sexes. With the identities of the sexes invisible and roles completely androgynous, the natural fundament of our society will be crashed. When men are no longer men and women are no longer women, one more fundament, one more orientation, one more natural-law will have disappeared. And nothing new will come to replace it. While men used to be strong, hairy and concerned with how to win the next battle and secure the survival of their family, now they are slim, smooth and concerned with which bottle of skin conditioner to buy. Something is foul here.

And then there is this pathologic need to “take things into our hands” which the post-modern society managed to train us into. Just as the neo-liberal capitalistic system managed to free us from all traditional values and rules in order to establish greed as the only valuable rule, it managed to make us feel free and responsible to reshape every single aspect of our being. It is that self-realisation aspect in which it is not the nation, the social class or the education that are responsible for our success and our life-stories – it is only and exclusively us and how we manage ourselves and our lives. The neo-liberal capitalism gave us the right, which has then unfortunately turned into a painful obligation, to construct and shape every single aspect of our existence, including our body hair. While this can be liberating and fun, it can also be frustrating and exhausting. And here’s the real danger – concerned with shaping ourselves and our lives, we cannot be concerned with shaping the world we live in.

Taking things into your hands can turn into a problem, when the “things” are not important and when the re-shaping process turns into a process of enslaving instead of liberating. Look at what happened with women: For generations, feminists have been fighting against treating women as objects which can be shaped and used however men, or the society, wants it. Unfortunately, today women have turned into objects more then they have ever been. They are literally blackmailed by the existence of a new virtual woman presented by the media: the Bimbo. She is airbrushed, siliconised and liposucted, über-naturally slim and toned, with huge breasts, plumped lips, not a trace of cellulites, body-hair, brain or any other natural “imperfections”. The appearance of Bimbo resulted with naturally beautiful women feeling frustrated, insecure and unhappy. It resulted in a rocketing rise in eating disorders, deaths through anorexia, plastic surgeries and of course, bought cosmetic products and services. But what is even worse, it resulted in women wasting an incredible amount of time and energy on their looks. And we all know that today, more then ever, there are more important things to be occupied with than looks.

And because half of the market cannot be enough, now it is men’s turn to become victims. Have their ego crashed and have them waste money on cosmetics and have them waste their time figuring out the newest depilation techniques! Sheep like that are much easier to manipulate. The male Bimbo is already a reality. Open any magazine and you will find a six-packed, completely shaved, wrinkle and grey-hair-free Ken smiling at you, selling you one of the newest products.

Finally, there is the hidden agenda to create a complete dissatisfaction with anything we are born with. Because if you are unsatisfied with everything you are born with, and if you believe you must take things into your hands to change it and shape it the way magazines told you it should be, you will be a fantastic consumer of cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and various services such as waxing, hair colouring and breast-enhancing. It seems to work. Today, leaving anything untouched and unchanged seems like a proof of failure or weakness. And being  unhappy with yourself is good: self-secure and strong people might rebel. We seem to be safe from this: After you’ve spent 10 hours in the office, 2 in the gym and 1 reading about the newest diet, you will not have the capacity to notice the socio-economic system crashing, rich getting richer and the environment being poisoned to the point of no return. And even if you do, you will be way too tired to try and change anything.

This is why male body hair is important: To learn to love ourselves just the way we are. And to start working on improving the world rather then our unimportant little asses.

Michael, we love you!

Friday, June 26th, 2009

Michael Jackson is dead. This is officially an end of an era. End of what we have known as true superstars. One of the last of the truly great is gone. Welcome the era of products of market research departments.

He was special. He was unbeatable. He was incredibly talented. In so many ways. He was a fantastic singer. He was a dancer like only Fred Astair was. (There are great dancers, but there are God-chosen dancers. Like Shiva – when they move, the world moves with them). He wrote songs that moved us will always move us. He created ground breaking videos which started a new art form. And he had the “it” – the substance, the presence, the aura, the charisma of the chosen person.

But it was the very same talent, and the sensibility that comes with it, that crashed him. When you do things with your heart, because you simply must do them, because you have been chosen to do them, you are a victim of your own destiny. A superstar like Madonna, who has built her fame and her career on hard work and strong will, has that very same rationality to protect her from the burdens of stardom. A star like Michael Jackson, to whom the glory happened because of his talents, because he was “chosen”, has no tools to fight the negative aspects of stardom.

And there are many. People tend to glorify the idea of being a superstar. You have it all: the money, the fame, the power. The stars will tell us it is not that simple, but the envy will not let us understand. Imagine the amount of energy and essence that just one concert in which you give your whole existence to tens of thousands of people will rob. (And then do it for 44 years.) Imagine trying to keep your inner self intact and trying to build a protective shield between you and the people who believe they have the right to own you and know every cell in you. Imagine always staying alert against people who want to steal a piece of your fortune. Imagine the pressure of always being under public eye, of always having to stay on the top, of never making a mistake, never disappointing all those millions of fans. Money and power is good, but you can keep the fame.

And that is exactly the only thing Michael Jackson had left at the end. The worst of the best. Bankrupted, humiliated, and mentally and physically frail, he only had this fame that wouldn’t have abandoned him, no matter what people accused him for and no matter what a freak he had turned into.

Yes, the freakiness. Jacko the Wacko. But the freakiness is just a part of what he was. He wouldn’t have been Michael Jackson, the unbeatable King of Pop, without the freakiness. If you stand on the stage since the age of four, glorified my masses but also mistreated by people who are closest to you; if you never had a childhood, and never had a person that was truly supporting you through all those incredible things happening with your life; and if you could afford it – well, you had to become a freak. Freakiness was his way of helping himself. An illusion of Neverland, his paradise in which he was safe and happy; an illusion of Batman and Superman, who were his best friends; an illusion that he was – and looked like – an ethereal being like Peter Pan. They were his crooks. And we loved him for them.

Yes, we loved the freak in Michael Jackson. Millions of girls of my generation fell in love with him for this childish, Peter Pan-esque flair that turned him into an androgynous and ageless being. When you dreamt of Michael Jackson at the age of 14, it felt safe, because there was nothing sexual about him. He was not a man. He was a boy. An angel, a cartoon hero, a deity. The love for him was not worldly. There was something pure and ethereal in Michael.

Speaking of which… yes, the unavoidable issue of child-molesting allegations. This absolutely does not matter. We know he was different and we know that in this freaky childishness, he must have approached those kids differently than you would expect a normal man of his age. But we also know that people are greedy and we know that those parents let their kids play with a freak. We will never know the truth about what was going on. Maybe it is better that way. Maybe not.

We will miss Michael Jackson. We will miss his energy, his talent, his moves and his movies. We will miss the freak that he was. Because he was the last of the true, God-made freaks. Welcome to the age of plastic stars with mediocre talents and nothing to give. Welcome to the substance-free era.

We better just BEAT IT!

Iran and the Art of Posing Questions

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

… written on 18 June 2009…

I have just received a friend’s message on Facebook asking me to change my picture to green to show my support for the Iranian people. “Great,” I thought. “That’s the least I can do.” But then I asked myself, “Why?” Green is not the colour of the people of Iran, green is the colour of Mousawi. Why should I promote Mousawi on my profile?

In that moment, I understood that how the world is reacting to what is going on in Iran is yet another showcase of our society’s biggest failure: ignorance. We are continuously forgetting to ask questions and through this, crippling our awareness and our ability to have our own critical opinion.

A few weeks ago, there was a scandal in Austria because students in a high-school asked why Jews boarded the trains to Auschwitz. The kids were punished and labelled as anti-Semitic. They will never again dare to ask questions. I have witnessed a similar aversion towards questions at Vienna University. I attended a course taught by a professor who tried to motivate students to be more involved and more critical. This only resulted in students, who are used to passively memorise what has been served to them, starting a “riot” against the professor.

The broadcast media is playing a huge role in this, and the media is setting its own agenda. Following CNN, for example, you quickly get a very simplified, black and white picture of what is going on in Iran – of a whole country rising up in opposition against the “bad” anti-Semitic Ahmadinejad, of a whole country for the “good” reformer Mousawi. These are high-intensity, emotional reports. Suddenly you will find yourself hating a regime in a far away country and supporting the people on the streets. Without having a real clue WHY?

Watching CNN, you see again how easy it is for the media to construct a reality of their choice (it is again on us to ask “why” this very choice). The viewers are fed this reality in such a way that they are not given space to develop their own critical awareness. And it proved again with Iran: Not only are we not posing the right questions. We are not posing any questions at all.

And it is so easy to start with WHY’s: Why is Ahmadinejad “bad”? Why should Mousawi be good? Why do I believe that the elections were fraudulent? Why should I become involved? You can then continue with WHAT’s: What are those protests really about? What do Iranian people actually want? What is actually going on behind the curtains? And what role does the rest of the world play?

And once you get more informed, new important questions will rise:

What about the country’s history?

Iranians have a history of protesting and starting revolutions.  Those past protests and revolutions were often manipulated by the “west”,  ending in numerous changes in their regimes. Unfortunately, most of the time, the changes were for the worse, not bringing the wanted freedom and well-being to the population. The current regime has also come to power through the revolution of 1979.

Who are the stakeholders?

When you try to understand modern Iranian history, the political changes, regimes and power-struggles, you will get dizzy for the complexity and sad for the tragedy of this country’s history. The most tragic part in Iranian modern history is the fact that most of the upheavals were instrumented by the western world, lead by Great Britain and USA. It shocks to see how the destiny of a country of that size and that cultural history can be manipulated through a series of tragic events. So you cannot but wonder if anyone has their fingers in current protests again – and why.

Do you always believe the media?

We are witnessing yet another media-phenomenon. The Iranian government has restricted reporting, so the media had started a hunt for “gossip” and amateur reports.

The emergence of new technology, including mobile phone cameras and internet sites such as Youtube, Twitter and Facebook, has made our society addicted to any “forbidden” or “intimate” material. CNN made a special topic out of this, turning reporting from Iran into a mixture of a quest for Holy Grail and Big Brother. This ended in viewers happy to witness a hunt for forbidden and unreachable content and forgetting to question what they are seeing and hearing.

And ironically, just between the forbidden pictures from Iran, there was a report about an opening of a Banksy exhibition in the Bristol Museum. This graffiti artist owes a huge part of his fame to the fact that what he did was forbidden and he managed to stay anonymous.

What is democracy?

One of the issues discussed on CNN was if Arab people are jealous of Iranian people’s will to stand up for their rights. If we remember that only recently, USA was governed by a man whom 78% of US citizens did not approve of, then the question should have been if the US people are jealous and why haven’t they protested to push their will through? Millions of people around the world have protested against the USA’s planned attack on Iraq. In a truly democratic world, wouldn’t that have changed USA’s plans?

We are also forgetting the problems with Florida votes which lead to last Bush’s last victory. Why didn’t we get this involved back then?

Furthermore, it seems that we are only hearing the louder side, Mousawi’s followers in Teheran. But only because they are louder and more visible, are they really a majority?

And finally, let us not forget that the choice Iranian people have had in this election was far from democratic. Both candidates come from the same regime. Which leads us to the next question:

Is any change good change?

Since 1979 revolution, Iran is governed by the religious leaders. The current man in power is not Ahmadinejad, it is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Both Ahmadinejad and Mousawi are “his people”. And although Mousawi is called a “reformer”, his reforms are minimal and will not change the repressive regime in this country (as he himself stated on his website). Women will stay discriminated against, marriage age will stay 13, and people will get stoned.  Meaning that the actual protests in support of Mousawi are not about the real change of the sysrem, they are about fair counting of the votes.  Which, it has to be admitted, is a start.

It will be interesting to watch how this episode about the Iranian elections will end. I don’t like the fact that this is happening so shortly after (for the first time in the history) Israel has been not so fully supported by the USA.  Hopefully it will, just like all other stories hyped up by the media, simply get exchanged for a newer hype. But what will be left is a huge task for us not to stay ignorant, and for the Iranian people to bring true change to their country.

And once they have this vision, I will immediately change all my pictures into whatever colour they ask me to.

….and today, three days later, I must add: every dead person is one dead person too much…..

Journalism?

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

I am wondering if I am just learning what it is to be a journalist or if am I writing for a wrong newspaper?

I wrote an article about Vienna’s “other foreigners”. Vienna is the city of foreigners. Under “foreigners”, people here understand Turks, Serbs, Croats… What is completely ignored, is that Vienna is one of hubs centres of international organisations. 25 such organisations are based in Vienna. This means between 20,000 and 30,000 foreigners in Vienna who belong to this international community. These people are great for their international touch, for being educated and being experts in their field. This is being recognised through their salaries, their status, their privileges – they don’t pay taxes for instance. They are given a lot. Unfortunately, this community is hermetically closed. Invisible. So I finished my article about them (which I started by saying they are invisible) by saying that this is a pity because they could also give a lot back to Vienna – in just giving it more of the “other” or being more visible. Meaning, making Vienna into a truly international city.

And what did the paper do? Simply cut the ending. So basically, I have an article out there just describing this community. Every high-school kid could have written an article like this.

I complained that not only they took the attitude and the main point out of my article, they cut its ending – it ends too abruptly. The explanation was that my ending was too much of a comment.

My question is:  what is the use of journalism if it doesn’t raise questions?

And here a quote of the day:

“Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.” Eleanor Roosevelt.

Please, don’t pimp MY ride. I like it the way it is.

Monday, June 8th, 2009

“I never had a boyfriend in my life and I think it has to do with my car.”

“If I had a nice ride, I think it would completely change my life.”

…as just head on MTV’s Pimp my Ride.

Fuck all those Germany’s Models and Pimp My Rides! How about someone finally makes Pimp my Brain, a show in which the audience will learn that it is not a new ride (OK, maybe, if the ride was 186cm tall, full of muscles, extremely cool and VERY blessed by nature) that will completely change your life – but only your fucking new attitude!?

I am becoming seriously allergic to all this brainwashing.