As I progressed through the reading of Douglas Rushkoff's, Coercion, a specific excerpt struck me due to its great relevance to our current in-class discussion concerning "The Star-Spangled Banner".
"After dutifully singing the National Anthem (and forcing Peter to stand and put his hand on his heart), Joseph replaces the headphones over his ears and watches sadly out of the corner of one eye as his grandson reflexively responds to each marketing appeal made during the game" (Rushkoff 102).
The chapter from which this passage was extracted is titled "Spactacle," and rightfully so. The author narrates how the social cohesion of big sporting events, and any large-scale events for that matter, inspire a sense of unity within the crowd because of the coercive atmospheric and hand-in-hand propaganda techniques executed by the media.
Young 11-year-old Peter felt more in unison with the crowd when advertisers offered cash prizes to the spectators, rather than when his nation's anthem was sung. At these events, any moments of high excitement and emotional potential are attacked by corporations in need of more business. When the defense "sacks" the opposing team, audience members are asked to wave around signs with the "Outback Steakhouse" logo facing them directly, whetting their appetite for a lean, sirloin steak. Thus, great football team tactics become associated with a particular restaurant, and, yet again, the media has won.
Is this the reason, then, that some are apathetic towards the national anthem (just as Pete was)? Instead of singing our unifying anthem at times of victory, we are exposed to latent propaganda.
Just a thought; now, what are yours?
(Sam Maliha)
P.S. I know some of you dislike me for starting the "name-in-parantheses" trend, haha. I apologize! :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that a lot of the apathy shown is due to the advertisers. After all, don't these advertisers want to catch people's attention? They try to make things seem as exciting as they can so that people will notice and pay attention.
I do think, though, that a part of this also goes back to what we discussed in class about the song being overplayed. Even though Peter is only eleven, I do not have any doubt that he has already heard the national anthem many times before.
Sometimes I feel as if Rushkoff, though he, as a media analyst, exposes senationalism, he is still somewhat of a, well.... sensationalist. Maybe I'm just being skeptical of the direct power of such blatant advertising.. It just seems as if after being hit so indiscreetly time after time, we become desensitized. So yes, we become apathetic due to the mass propaganda, but it doesn't fool us into thinking that Outback has anything to do with football... Right?
In some ways, the national anthem is regarded with measured apathy because of our overexposure to it. Overexposure really only leaders to two possible ends: one where we become very emotional or the other where we become apathetic (The two opposite ends of the spectrum arising from an extreme). I'm not quite sure why we tipped towards the apathetic end, but it's clear that it's happened. The advertisers aren't generating a sense of unity, it just seems like it in comparison to the apathy felt by many during the playing of the national anthem. Context, my friends, context.
Post a Comment