Documentary Analysis

For my documentary analysis assignment, I chose to view the ever popular "Super Size Me," which follows director Morgan Spurlock on an investigation of the obesity trend in America. For those of you who don't know, Spurlock subjects himself to 30 days of eating only food from McDonald's restaurants and gauging how it affects his body. In doing so, he provides a vivid critique of the obesity problem in this country as well as a disurbing gimpse into the agendas of corporate fast food chains that is as witty as it is disgusting.

Overall, this may very well be the most effective and convincing documentaries I have ever observed. Most obviously is Spurolck's technique of providing a first-hand demonstration of the effects of consistent fast food consumption on the human body. He sacrifices his own health and well-being to ilustrate a point and viewers witness the indisputable results. Spurlock gains a substantial amount of weight in the short course of a month, getting ill and vomitting plenty along the way. This stark, selfless portrayal leaves little room for doubt as to the dangerous implications of eating fast food. Another technique used to build the argument at hand is the frequentl presentation of videos portraying morbidly obese people eating fast food in communities all across America. Though there is no proof that fast food caused these people's obesity, the standard viewer who is not practicing deep analysis of the film beyond the obvious would easily jump straight to that conclusion. And since these viewers likely compose the majority of the film's audience, this technique is effective indeed.

Spurlock also employs the ever effective method of personal testimony in his documentary. Among his interviewees, Spurlock speaks with a health professional, fast food consumers, and individuals employed in different levels of the fast food industry. In doing so, he attains a wide breadth of opinons. However, his personal, physical testimony of the effects of fast food automatically supports some of these opinions while completely refuting others, providing a witty irony to the statements of the "antagonists." Though not actually an interview, Spurlock adds an intriguing "policy" to his 30n day fast food binge. Anytime an employee asked if he would like the supersize meal, he had to accept. This technique displayed the priority the corporate fast food organizations place on maximizing profits over nurturing the well-being of society.

Which leads into the concept of bias in this documentary. If Spurlock hadn't previously maintained the notion that fast food is bad for you, he most likely wouldn't have bothered making this film to begin with. There definitely appears to be a bias supporting the detrimental effects of fast food on the human body. The health professionals who attest to these effects are shed in a very professional and informed light, whereas the supporters of McDonald's are presented as deceptive or ignorant in the eyes of viewers.

"Super Size Me" is strikingly convincing as to the hazards of eating too much fast food. Never before have I seen an individual push his physical well-being to such disastrous limits just to get a point across. But as i said before, this sacrifice he makes for the good of society pretty much places his argument beyond contestation.

Observing the News

For this project, I watched an increment of the FOX evening News. Tonight, the focus seemed to be mostly on news stories since there is a lot going on recently. The majority of the program was focused on commemorating veterans for the national holiday occurring today, the massacre at Ft. Hood, the Dow's 13 day streak of rising prices, and President Obama's current stance on the prospect of sending more troops to Afghanistan. The weather report was also rather extensive and well advertised. They never let me forget that the weather was coming up soon! They did not focus on sports much at all, only a reminder that the Timberwolves are playing the Portland Trailblazers tonight. We were also informed as to what channel to watch if we wanted to catch the basketball action. No separate segment was devoted to sports, the main anchor simply mentioned it. Advertisements however, were prolific. There were two commercial breaks and both were near 6 minutes long. So thats almost 12 minutes out of 30 devoted to commercials. It's obvious where the station's money is coming from.

When it comes to strategy, nobody knows the value of sex appeal like a news program. All the anchors and other related news staff were visually appealing in respect to their age group. Even the older men and women making reports were relatively attractive. Camera angles, lighting, and makeup techniques were al effectively applied to highlight the newspeople's good looks. We live in a society where sex appeal will make or break a media affiliate, and the FOX News Network obviously exploits that. One thing that impressed me was the gender equality during the program. There seemed to be a pretty even proportion of men to women reporting different aspects of the news, and in the segment I viewed, certain portions of the news didn't seem to be stereotypically covered by a specific gender. Unfortunately, the racial diversity was not as equal as that of gender. Every anchor and reporter I saw was white, which suggests the demographic the program is targeting. Another technique was displaying images related to the story being told behind the anchors. I noticed that they provided a visual aspect which allowed viewers to relate to the story better while remaining subtle enough to maintain focus on the anchor. One more important method of appealing to viewers that I noticed was the use of a marquee at the bottom of the screen, which scrolled other current news stories as the anchors spoke, keeping viewers engaged and aware of other stories to come, thereby preventing viewers from changing channels. The use of editing was interesting as well. I noticed that the network appears to employ video clips of prominent figures as well as personal testimonies of regular citizens in a strategic way. For instance, they only show brief clips of President Obama's speeches that support their stories. Similarly, chances are the network got testimonial clips from several people for each story, yet, for example, they only showed one of a man's reaction to Obama's handling of the Afghanistan situation. The man's stance of course was one which seemed to coincide with the tone of the news story. It would seem that other opinions were left out, creating a very one-sided perspective.

Whether or not the media fabricates stories to portray a specific perspective s a common notion. However, there never seems to be enough evidence to truly stand by that claim to the average viewer. But when I actually took the time to closely observe the techniques used by news programs, I could definitely perceive that notion as a reality.

As for the different forms of media I encounter, some categories are more difficult to get detailed about than others. I watch many movies and therefore experience films produced by all of the major media firms. I don't watch a lot of television, but when I do, the channels I most commonly view seem to be owned by the Disney and Viacom Corporations. Such channels include all the ESPNs, The History Channel, Spike TV, and Comedy Central. My frequent internet sites are all over the board, with ESPN.com owned by Disney, NFL.com owned by CBS, and Moviefone & MapQuest owned by Time Warner.

The trouble with this media Oligarchy is that each major corporation can and most likely does alter and manipulate the content of its programming to convey a specific corporate image, and/or to influence/increase their audience. In the high-intensity world of mass media, ratings and market share are the driving force behind the actions and behaviors of corporations and they seem to be willing to do anything to gain the advantage. This is in contrast to local, independent media sources such as MinnPost or the Daily Planet. As local media outlets, they can always maintain a loyal customer base in the local population and therefore place emphasis on providing their readers with real local news rather than taking deceptive measures to get ratings. This leaves an impression of legitimacy in the readers' minds whereas one can never be sure that what the major media is reporting is truthful or not.

SMART WATER AD

GOT SODA?

HOW ABOUT NOW?

DRINK SMART!

Ad Analysis

This is one of my favorite commercials and it uses blatant gender segmentation to appeal to its target audience, men. Though enjoyed by both sexes, beer is quite obviously a man's product in the media. Similarly, fashion can be enjoyed by both sexes, though it is undoubtedly a woman's realm. This Heineken commercial effectively exploits these common target market associations. The ad incorporates a common, stereotypical female passion along with an equally stereotypical female reaction and then mirrors that reaction to accommodate a male passion. This ad completely separates the two involved genders, clearly targeting and appealing to men as drinkers of Heineken. Basically, this ad is suggesting that a cold Heineken is just as appealing for a man as a new wardrobe is for a woman, and the result is as hilarious as it is persuasive.

The visual effect is equally persuasive. The swirling fog in the air, the perfect layout and attractive organization of every glass bottle, and the sheer multitude of bottles conveys the image of ice cold, delicious, plentiful beer. These are indeed ideal beer drinking conditions. I dare you to watch this commercial and not crave a Heineken.