Post 2: Polioptics

I absolutely loved Joshua King's presentation in class on Polioptics. He brought up a point that is commonly overlooked (at least by me) when it comes to the political imagery that the media presents: everything is planned. Even spontaneous photographs of the president playing with First Dog, Bo, and the family trips are all carefully orchestrated in order to present the First Family in the best possible light.




I always knew that there are people at the White House who are responsible specifically for organizing how and where the President is photographed, but I never imagined the full extent to which all of this planning occurred. Seeing all of King's diagrams and plans made it all very real to me; nothing is unplanned.

These cautionary measures taken with presidential photographs are necessary, though. Politicians, especially Barack Obama and the First Family, are under intense scrutiny in images, whether they like it or not. Clothing, for example, seems to be a really "easy target" for critics to fire at when it comes to the politicians. One thing that comes to my mind is the Michelle Obama "shorts" controversy.


So during the Obamas' summer vacation this year, the family decided to go to Yellowstone National Park for a retreat away from the hub of national politics. Of course, cameras followed them everywhere, documenting their trip and allowing the media to report on the exact goings-on of the getaway. What caused major fuss, however, was nothing political, but .... *drum roll please* First Lady Michelle Obama's shorts.




Yes, the media seemed quite surprised to see the First Lady out in public wearing shorts. I was shocked to see how quickly images of Michelle Obama wearing her shorts and t-shirt at Yellowstone were spreading throughout the news and blogosphere. The criticisms I heard seemed so outrageous to me. Were people really that surprised to see a First Lady in the 21st century out in public with shorts?


Although I personally don't mind what the First Lady chooses to wear on her summer vacation, I'm pretty sure she has a personal stylist and publicist who is aware that wearing a tanktop and shorts will spark outrage in the media. Was this photo-op planned? Although after Joshua King's presentation, I got the impression that every time the President and First Family step out in public, pretty much every photograph angle is planned, something tells me that Michelle did not expect all of this media back-lash against her wardrobe choices.


So why was it that the media and public responded harshly to Michelle's clothing? Was it really not expected or proper for a First Lady to wear shorts out in public? No similar incident comes to mind for previous First Families and this leads me to wonder .... is race involved?


After coming across this article online that went beyond citing remarks against Michelle Obama's clothing choices and referencing comments on daughter Malia's unstraightened hair as "unfit to represent America," I had to question whether or not this is merely a clothing etiquette concern or a larger race issue at hand. In my opinion, the comments made against Michelle Obama and her daughtere were inappropriate, unnecessary, and show a widespread narrowmindedness when it comes to how a First Family should look like. If this media coverage of an article of clothing wasn't expected, then the Obamas need to more carefully consider what they wear in public if they want to avoid the same press in the future. However, if Michelle stepped out in shorts intentionally knowing full well the comments she would get, then she is definitely making a bold statement on behalf of her and her family about what a 21st century First Family can look like.

Post 1: Three Potential Topics

Right now, I'm exploring three potential topics for my final paper. The first is examining media coverage on intellectual property rights cases, focusing on music downloading lawsuits. In the 90s it was Napster and now it's Limewire and Kazaa that are the primary foci of many downloading cases. Illegal downloading is extremely popular these days (in this economy) and is almost commonplace at many colleges. However, this isn't merely a college phenomenon; even older adults have been caught with illegally downloading music and are being forced to pay up.

The second potential topic is on how gender inequality is portrayed in America and in other countries by the American media. Over the summer, I read a New York Times op-ed on Italian women and inequality in that country and what I found really interesting were the comments left at the bottom of the article online. The article places partial blame on a bad influence from up top; this isn't the first time Italy's Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has come under fire for his attitudes and behavior towards women.

Many Americans were criticizing the condition of gender inequality in Italy, while others were criticizing Americans for criticizing other country's gender issues while America itself suffers similar problems. I'm not exactly sure how I will explore the topic more, whether I will examine portrayals of different countries or different issues (career issues, expected roles, appearance), but I'm excited to explore this topic more. Is America more "lenient" with the progress we've made in the gender issue than with other countries? America is far from perfect regarding this issue as well. Do we deserve to be critical of other nations when we ourselves are still trying to combat sexism and gender inequality?

My third topic choice is examining the American media portrayal of China. The country recently celebrated its 60th anniversary after becoming a Communist nation and I know that the New York Times had a special series on China online. What I want to investigate within this topic is this: what topics are Americans concerned with in regards to China? I remember when I studied abroad in the summer of 2008 on the Princeton in Beijing program that our teachers would often ask us questions about our government and its views on China. I definitely think that Communist countries like China and Cuba are represented differently by the media due to political reasons. One incident that stands out to me is the “CNN picture cropping” that occurred in 2008.

While I was studying abroad in China, one of our lessons discussed media and objectivity. This incident was brought up to show the American media as being somewhat biased, especially in the China-Tibet conflict. CNN has even become a slang term in the Chinese language; if someone in China says that something is “too CNN,” it implies that the story is not complete, a lie, and that there are clear biases involved. I wanted to investigate this further by comparing other nations’ media reportage of diplomatic relations in China compared with American media reportage. The main question I will want to answer is: What’s in it for the American media? What political gains are there to be had with presenting China in the way it currently is presented in the media?

I'm really open to all three of these ideas, but there is still no clear favorite I would like to write a research paper on. I'm hoping that maybe some more current events will get my juices flowing and lead me in one particular direction.