Greenpeace is both marketer of ideas and media critic. The above video is a recent attack on Dove, parodying its “Onslaught” campaign to criticize Dove’s use of palm oil because it destroys rain forests. The Greenpeace version is pretty intense, although a bit manipulative. What do you think?
Now Greenpeace has a “StopGreenwashing” site that allows users to submit examples of “greenwash”– “Used to describe the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” I applaud their effort but have a small (constructive) criticism of the project. You are asked to vote on greenwash videos, but there is no context given. You are supposed to automatically understand why the commercial is bad. Furthermore, the site offers no tools for reading ads. I hope that in the future Greenpeace will make the effort to incorporate media literacy tools into the site.
I admit that Dove’s first round of postironic anti-”beauty” beauty commercials rubbed me the wrong way. I posted that it was a little too close to the edge of self-promotion for a beauty supply company to market itself as the anti-product. But this one is pretty darn amazing, to be honest, and it really hit me viscerally because I have a young daughter. The advice is wise: we shouldn’t let media parent our children. So though there’s a tiny cynical voice inside me that decries this as an insidiously ploy cloaked inside the protein shell of a corporate virus, I believe the intention behind it is sincere. I believe this would be a good teaching tool, as long as it is presented within the context of other messages.
Update:
I just became aware that Dove’s parent company Unilever also makes Axe, which has one of the most heinous, misogynous marketing campaigns in the universe. It is so insidious and evil it almost nullifies all the good will that Dove creates with its ad. Because on the one hand, Dove is promoting the self-esteem of girls, but on the other, Axe not only promotes the degradation of girls, it creates the fantasy that women are just tools of male sexuality. It subtly promotes a rapist mentality by encouraging the belief that every woman’s goal is to rip off her clothes at the first sent of a boy using Axe. And if she doesn’t, what will he do with his false expectations? It is quite infuriating and disgusting.
Unilever says it wants to promote girls’ self-esteem. Its Dove Campaign for Real Beauty has been lauded for challenging the standards of the beauty industry.
There’s just one problem: Unilever is the beauty industry. A manufacturer of diet aids, cosmetics, skin whiteners, and other beauty products, Unilever is responsible for much of the advertising it claims it wants to help girls resist. Unilever’s advertising for Axe grooming products – which appears frequently on MTV and other youth-oriented media – epitomizes the sexist and degrading marketing that can undermine girls’ healthy development.
If Unilever is serious about promoting girls well-being, they’ll start by looking in the mirror. Please take a moment to urge Unilever CEO Patrick Cescau to end the degrading Axe campaign.
One of the features of the endless stream of articles about the nonexistent DDT ban is the way they all cite each other instead of cracking open a textbook or checking with an actual scientist. I call this the disinformation cycle. As far as I can tell, it is nearly 100% efficient and there is little danger of actual facts about the world contaminating the pure flow of disinformation.
Share and Enjoy:These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
What follows is a decent article about how conservatives “frame” language in order to control how issues are thought about. The concept is based on the work of neurolinguist George Lakoff, whose book Don’t Think of an Elephant, was in the back pocket of every Democrat after the last presidential defeat. Framing is important for the study of propaganda, but I think it’s overblown because it assumes that all politics is about language (much of it is) and who controls it, but coming up with good ways to frame concepts is no substitute for good policy and righteous action. Sure framing will help progressives and ecologists get their messages out, but what is more important is ethics, intention and pedagogy. Organizers should think less about manipulations and more about establishing good intentions through the pedagogy and work of their cause. By incorporating the philosophy of Deep Ecology, for example, the long term change has greater benefits. To Catch a Wolf: How to Stop Conservative Frames in Their Tracks - CommonDreams.org:
BLITZER: Congressman Kucinich, you voted against the Patriot Act when it was first introduced. You’ve since voted again against it. But some would say yesterday’s plot that was described by the FBI underscores the need for precisely that kind of tough measure to deal with potential terrorists out there.
Here is the framing evoked by the question:
First, and perhaps most importantly, the question assumed that the plot was indeed serious and was not, as Arianna Huffington has suggested, disorganized and disgruntled citizens who were hapless and harmless. Second, the question assumed that the plot was only foiled due to the provisions of the Patriot Act - not community cooperation or police work. Third, the question lumped all Patriot Act provisions together under the banner of necessity. Many provisions in the Patriot Act are indeed beneficial and needed. However, many more are a clear violation of civil rights - Blitzer’s question did not reveal these disparities. Fourth, the language “tough measure” and “terrorists out there” represented the Bush administration exactly as the President wanted: The Republicans are tough (hence the Democrats are weak), and there is real evil immediately threatening us (and the Democrats are too weak to protect us).
Finally, the question suggested that the trampling of civil rights through this “tough measure to deal with potential terrorists” is virtuous and worthy of being commended. Since the plot was foiled — Blitzer’s question implied that the Patriot Act is an effective measure to fight terrorists — and is therefore worth the destruction of civil rights.
The hard working folks at Center for Media and Democracy, who publish PR Watch and other invaluable resources, have compiled a list of the worse spinsters of the year. If you have been tracking the media in 2006, you will recognize many of these stories. It’s an excellent, compact list of the latest misinformation strategies being employed in the mediasphere.
The two top winners of our third annual Falsies Awards share a love of film. And if a picture is worth a thousand words, then a misleading moving picture must be worth tens of thousands of lies. In contrast, the third-place Falsies winner spread its money and its message over many media, including the Internet, television, radio and billboards. All the better to spin you with, my dear!
Dishonorable mentions go to a partisan front group, anti-environmental think tanks, efforts to recruit elementary school children for the military, and paid bloggers posing as grassroots supporters of the world’s largest retailer. Lastly, the 1,204 respondents to our Falsies Awards survey nominated dozens of other worthy recipients, several of whom are mentioned below in our Reader’s Choice Awards.
Bridging media literacy with ecoliteracy, written by Antonio Lopez, an old school dharma punk and media educator. Occasionally he shoots from the lip, bloviates, misspells and can be tangential.
Now available, Antonio's health and media literacy CDROM curriculum for youth of color, Merchants of Culture. This valuable resource contains dozens of video and print examples of how advertisers market harmful substances such as alcohol and tobacco to various niche audiences, including Native Americans, Latinos, African Americans, Asians, GLBT and Women. This is an excellent primer for introducing the subject of cultural marketing to high school and middle school students. This is also a great product for health professionals and councilors working in the area of prevention.
