Monday, March 30, 2009

Out of the White House: President Obama Interviews with Jay Leno

In today’s world, political leaders from around the globe utilize unconventional media channels to reach a wider audience beyond their typical followers. Knowing that people will usually support those they appreciate and connect with on a personal level, President Barack Obama recently appeared on The Tonight Show with host Jay Leno, where he discussed “politics, the economy and adjusting to his new lifestyle." While others have obviously turned to television shows for publicity during their candidacy or after their term in office, Obama is the first sitting president in the United States to appear on a talk show, and for good reason. The appearance of a figure as prominent as the President of the United States of America on live national television is risky – it leaves the interviewee open to countless amounts of criticism, while at the same time providing an incredible amount of publicity. The President, however, chose to embrace this challenge in order to achieve his political goals of gaining popular support for his current projects in Washington.

President Obama’s objective with this particular interview was clear from the onset as he demonstrated his desire to connect with the average American. From cracking jokes about the White House and the slow manner in which Washington takes care of business to teasing about picking winning teams from swing states, the President holds no bars in trying to side with the American people about the current state of our nation. Even his choice of which talk show would be best indicates that the President had a wide range of individuals he intended on reaching with his message, as the program has a regular audience of approximately 5 million viewers from practically every demographic in the United States. One critic has even argued that, “The White House move is every bit as calculated as a Hollywood studio’s campaign for a new blockbuster.” The President utilized his easygoing personality and pleasant sense of humor as he took this publicity opportunity to explain aspects of the country’s current financial crisis that are difficult concepts to grasp for someone not educated in economics and creative financing. Clearly aware of his audience, the President broke down the crisis into simple terms, gearing viewers’ understanding towards a more accepting point of view of the policies of his administration. Obama’s comments steered those viewers that happened to be on the fence in their opinion on the President’s direction with the financial crisis to take a more favorable view and hold fast to their faith in his plan. As some critics have noted, it seems as if President Obama attempted to lengthen, or at the very least, to continue, his honeymoon period with this interview.

The positive attention and welcome reception of TV audiences is one of the many positives to this type of publicity. Audiences from coast to coast see the President talking one on one with someone they are already comfortable watching on a nightly basis, discussing not just politics and economics, but also his own day to day life. In this sense, the President becomes a real person, rather than an out of touch, elitist figure in Washington. Furthermore, the audience that he does reach is extremely diverse. Obama’s message about patience and endurance which he carries over from his inauguration speech reaches not just those viewers who regularly tune in to political news shows and the State of the Union address, but people from every age, ethnicity, background, occupation, and status across the nation. And in this interview, he demonstrates that he has a personality, and an infectious one at that. In his discussions about his family, his free time, his dog, and his athleticism, the President shows his likeness to the very people he leads, giving him credibility with those who would like to see more of their own in leadership. There is, however, a considerable amount of criticism for the President’s decision to appear on The Tonight Show. Mary Kate Cary, former speechwriter for President Bush #41, writes in her blog that the type of public appearance that President Obama chose has the tendency to decrease his political legitimacy. Cary argues that, “As much as President Obama would like to be a man of the people, a ‘regular guy,’ he's not anymore.” She states that his duties are to be the Commander-in-Chief and the leader of the Executive Branch of the government. Cary feels as if Obama’s appearance on Leno’s show makes him, “just one more talk show guest, a celebrity on the circuit promoting his latest movie or book.” Cary and other politically minded Americans feel that the President should pay his respect to the office and the position that he holds, and stop attempting to devalue it to make it a more casual, down-to-earth process.

Cary’s attitudes are shared by many others that are not part of the inner circle in Washington or any part of the political arena. In responses to her blog, as well as in responses to other posts written about the Presidential TV appearance, viewers expressed their disappointment with the President. Many focused on specific quotes that they disagreed with, particularly focusing on Obama’s comment about the Special Olympics. Quoting directly from the interview, the President said, “I bowled a 129…It's like -- it was like Special Olympics, or something.” The joke was meant to be all in good humor, with Obama teasing himself, and was not meant to be demeaning to disabled or handicapped citizens. Many took the joke to be offensive, or simply found it to be an inappropriate comment for a President. While some focused on specific quotes, others were angered by the very idea of Obama taking the time to do this interview, just as he takes the time to do other leisurely activities in his free time. One person said, “the Economy is in shambles.....and he's picking out his Basketball final four? He's working on his bowling? AND NOW HE'S LAUGHING IT UP ON THE TONIGHT SHOW????!!!!!! For all of you out of work that happened to watch the show....how's your confidence in our Prez now?” Viewers that agree with this statement feel that the President should be doing more to fix the country’s financial problems rather than taking the time to fly across the country to appear on a television show, much less taking the time to watch sports on TV and practice playing basketball with his assistants.

Obama’s publicity technique of sharing his infectious personality and upbeat sense of humor publicly on a talk show is not a typical one for American Presidents. The harsh criticisms of his audience are the risk that he took when he decided to do an unscripted, unprompted live television interview on a comedy talk show. He left himself at the mercy of the American people. He was required to be funny in order to win the hearts of his citizens, but he took the chance knowing that not everyone would think his jokes were humorous, nor would he win unanimous agreements. The type of interview he did had little to do with policymaking; its purpose was more to make the American public fall in love with him and to maintain the honeymoon period of the beginning of his term in office. Mary Kate Cary, on the other hand, feels that this appearance has the opposite affect on the President’s popularity. Cary contends that this interview will actually lessen his honeymoon period because it will diminish his reputation with elite government officials who are looking very critically at the President’s every move. Her ideas were also supported by several comments to her post, which express views that this publicity move is mainly about being a celebrity instead of being a policymaker.

In plowing about the blogosphere, however, it becomes apparent that those who criticize Obama now are those who have always criticized him. The most adamant members of the opposition to the President have been so since the beginning – they were the ones who did not vote for him, who have consistently argued against him, and who have been very vocal about their disagreements. The politically conservative, like Cary, disagree with his approach to the White House and prefer a more traditional, formal type of policymaking process, rather than Obama’s more casual and down-to-earth methods. Events like the appearance on The Tonight Show add fuel to their fire: they see publicity moves like this as wastes of taxpayer time and money. However, these are not necessarily the people that Obama attempted to reach with his appearance on the talkshow. The most impressionable audience for the President’s charm correspond with the audience of The Tonight Show. They are people who are not necessarily politically-minded, who may not have know an extensive amount of Obama’s background, and who typically turn to the media to help them form their ideas about politics. Along with these people come those who have been uncertain of what to think of the President and his first few days in office, as well as those who started out as supporters but have begun to doubt. This audience, as opposed to those who already have a bitter taste in their mouth for Obama, is a more receptive one. The President’s requests for patience, endurance, and understanding from the American people are geared towards these viewers that are willing to listen to what he has to say and are not opposed to taking a liking to the President if their hearts allow. Thus, President Obama’s methods are effective for his purpose – he wins over those who have yet to be won over, and remains consistent in his methods of managing his job as President of the United States.

Monday, March 9, 2009

Alcoholism Abroad: Government Responses to Growing Epidemics

The use of alcohol has been a part of numerous cultures for thousands of years. Even our Stone Age ancestors were discovered to have primitive beer jugs that held fermented beverages. The substance means different things to different people. In some places, it is an integral part of a traditional ceremony. In France, wine is a way of life, served with most meals and commonly enjoyed by people as young as twelve. In many countries, however, alcohol has been assigned a negative stigma. In the United States, for instance, alcohol abuse accounted for 3.5% of deaths in the year 2000. While there are many reasons for this, one of the major arguments is that the presence of alcohol in media, such as in films or commercials, accounts for an increased likelihood of a person to try alcohol. In other words, test subjects “watching films portraying alcohol drank more alcohol themselves.” In an age of increased globalization and media connecting people across countries, the portrayal of alcohol as a key part of popular culture is spreading from countries like America into more conservative countries like India. Alcohol abuse has become so prevalent in these countries that their governments are beginning to impose more strict alcohol laws prohibiting their selling and usage in an attempt to reverse the damaging societal effects of its abuse. Several questions arise when these types of laws are seriously considered. How much governmental intervention is necessary to prevent substance abuse from becoming legitimately damaging to a culture? How much intervention is too much? While some debate that it is the responsibility of the government to protect its citizens from health hazards, others argue that it is the responsibility of society itself, using parents, media, teachers, and religious leaders as agents of change.

In this week’s post, I explore these questions by commenting on two blogs that address the issue of alcohol laws in other countries. The first one is entitled The Vulnerable Will Always Pay the Price by Paul Charnley, in which the author discusses Scottland’s policy that increases the price of cheap alcohol by setting a minimum price per unit. The second post is Alcohol, Hooligans, and India by Sukesh Kumar. Kumar tackles the moral issues behind India’s decision to implement alcohol laws.

The Vulnerable Will Always Pay the Price
Comment

Your post is very intriguing because you speak from experience – “I was one. I would beg outside a train station, asking for 50p on the pretence that that was all I needed to meet the fare,” you say. Such a personally compelling argument against this initiative is crucial for outsiders to understand the complexity of these laws. While at first glance, it might seem to the non-drinker that these laws would be effective in decreasing the amount of people that begin drinking, it does nothing to assist those who already suffer from alcoholism. As you have stated in your post, “Price will never matter to the addict, the user, regardless of the drug, regardless of regulation.” Increasing the price on cheap alcohol is designed to decrease the growing phenomenon of binge drinking. However, this “target market” consists of those who can afford to do so. They are not the alcoholics that are highly dependent on cheap alcohol to, as you say, “escape reality.” Therefore, those who are affected are those who are alcohol dependent, and who will only be forced into alternative means of achieving the money necessary to purchase these substances.

However, I have to agree with some of the previous posters that argue that this initiative is aimed at preventing alcoholism from being started in the first place. While it may not be one hundred percent effective, as people will still find a way to pay for alcohol if they really want to, it at least makes it more difficult for people to keep up the habit. The law also states that, “promotions, such as three-for-two offers, are to be banned, while the display and marketing of drink is to be restricted to specific areas in shops,” which are crucial steps to changing the prominence of alcohol in marketing. Thus, it will tend to have more long-term effects that are beneficial in preserving your country’s social fabric.

This is not to say that I do not agree with your position on this law – more needs to be done to truly help those who suffer from alcoholism, instead of just raising the amount of money they need to acquire to feed their addiction, which could lead to more illegal and dangerous lifestyles. It might be effective for the government to supplement this law with social responsibility measures. For example, instead of just increasing the prices of alcohol or prohibiting it, perhaps your community would gain from programs assisting those who are already suffering from alcoholism. It is ultimately the responsibility of society as a whole to encourage the responsible use of substances and to pass on its own moral traditions with the assistance of the government. Thus, the government cannot stand by and do nothing – it can at least aim to shape the long-term effects of its policies to directly help the formation of its culture.


Alcohol, Hooligans, and India
Comment

Your post brings to the forefront some very important issues that are often overlooked in the fight against alcoholism. You argue “that if there are restrictions/reservation about alcohol in religions of some families, then also, it lies with parents to guide their children about proper way, not with some third party with sticks in hands.” It seems that it is your opinion in general that people should be responsible for upholding their own standards about alcohol consumption in order to preserve their own culture, rather than relying on a “third party with sticks in hands.” Furthermore, you say “it’s a shame that we like to call ourselves liberal because it is favored by America and have forgotten our very own culture of tolerance.” Do you blame the spread of western culture and politics for the rise in pub culture in India? It would seem that you would not blame globalization itself in this case, but that you would place the responsibility on the affected people themselves not to become heavily influenced as a population and to hold onto their traditional values. But is it possible to hold on to tradition in a world where adopting western political ideas also leads to liberalization that was not possible in the past? With new freedoms and newfound access to other cultures, it is not only nearly impossible, but also seems unwise, for a nation to not at least attempt to embrace the customs of other countries.

I find your section about “the excuse” to be most intriguing – you state that it is easier to blame the people that engage in alcohol abuse rather than providing the proper environment to teach moderate consumption. In your opinion, would you rather see government programs geared towards alcohol education rather than alcohol prohibition? Making alcohol less available, though it is designed to have long-term effectiveness in preventing people from starting to drink in the first place, is not necessarily beneficial in stopping consumption altogether: instead, it is apt to create a black market for alcohol, promoting more illegal activity and more dangerous subcultures. Therefore, going along with your argument that it is ultimately up to people to take responsibility for their own actions, I feel that it is the government’s responsibility to provide information to its people that allows them to make educated choices.

Monday, March 2, 2009

McDonaldization: Examining the Effects of the International Fast Food Industry

In my last post, I chose to explore the blogosphere and to comment on fellow scholars who have written recent entries regarding popular culture in the international community. One of these articles included “Finding Hanoi in Paris,” a piece which described a Vietnamese restaurant in Paris’s 13th arrondissement, to which I responded with a commentary on the ways Western countries tend to take bits and pieces of other cultures rather than experiencing them as a whole. This week, I have chosen to continue this exploration, while also examining the role that the American food industry has had in developing popular culture in other countries. My journey began as I studied the basic facets of American culture that accounted for the rapid development of the fast food. Since its inception in the 1940’s, the fast food industry has boomed. The business of providing quick, tasty meals with the utmost convenience has been a top priority for entrepreneurs like Carl Karcher and Richard and Maurice McDonald. By the 1970’s, separate fast food chains each had hundreds of restaurants open across the United States. However, domestic success was not enough to satisfy these companies – not in a constantly changing world that continued to grow more globally connected each day.
These fast food establishments, both in America and abroad, fill a specific niche in the market: they satisfy the needs of a country that is constantly in pursuit of wealth. They cannot be blamed for making the most of their opportunities. Companies like McDonald’s are simply trying to make a profit while offering a product that is useful to its consumers. However, the problem that most anti-globalizationists see with the growing fast food movement in other countries is that it is becoming a lifestyle there as it has become in the United States, rather than simply providing a once-in-a-while fix.

Such is the environment in which our modern story begins. In this age of rapidly increasing globalization, the fast food industry has capitalized on the movement of Western cultural values into other countries. The McDonald's Corporation has restaurants in over forty countries including Yugoslavia, Japan, Peru, and New Zealand, to name a few. Part of the rich strategy employed the McDonald’s Corporation is its ability to adapt its menu to suit the specific tastes and wants of each region into which the company expands. For example, in India, customers can order the Chicken Maharaja Mac (pictured to the right), which features chicken or lamb, because most Hindu people do not eat beef. Thirsty Germans can enjoy a beer with their burger and fries, while the Japanese sip on Green Tea-flavored milkshakes. McDonald’s takes into consideration the most popular food trends and the stereotypical cultural eats, finds ways to quickly reproduce their own versions, and makes them available in a convenient location at a low price.

Although personalized to match the cultural differences of each country, these restaurants feature the same facets of American fast food that make the industry so successful: self-serve facilities that offer meals at affordable prices that are ready whenever customers are ready to eat them. This type of restaurant originally catered to those that were constantly on-the-go and did not have the time to even stop their car to get food from Carl Karcher’s hot dog stand. The typical fast food consumer was also the image of the average American in the 1940’s. People worked hard to pursue the American dream of being wealthy and successful while at the same time raising healthy families. These people continue to be the target market of fast food chains today. It seems, however, that the very existence of “fast food,” not just in the form of McDonald’s or Taco Bell but also in meal replacement shakes and microwavable dinners, has made this type of living on-the-go not only possible, but commonplace. In America, the average person works approximately 45 hours a week, while some executives clock in about 70 hours. In busy areas like Los Angeles and New York City, an employee has to leave early and often in a rush to beat the morning traffic to make it to the office on time. Then after work, parents drive to pick up their kids from school, take them to soccer practice and tutoring, and countless other activities. It is no wonder that Americans spend so much money on fast food: it is easier to swing by on the way home and pick up a hot meal than to go to the grocery store, purchase all the ingredients to a recipe, then spend over an hour making the food oneself. In a world where fast food is available at every street corner, instant gratification provides a much more efficient way for Americans to try to fit everything possible into their day without having to sacrifice the luxury of time.

Along with the cultural standards of speedy, instantly gratifying meals comes the deterioration of food quality. Restaurants like Taco Bell, for instance, take the most stereotypical aspects of a dish and mass-produce them in an assembly line fashion. No special family recipe that goes into making a Chalupa Supreme. Their tacos feature ground beef that is supplied frozen in bulk from a warehouse and cheddar cheese with hot sauce that is nowhere near the authenticity of something like Tapatio or homemade salsa. Taco Bell’s food has been tested to appeal to the masses: there is nothing extreme about it – it is designed to be enjoyed by as many people as possible. McDonald’s has done no less in other countries. They takes the most popular food trends, strips them of their intricacies, and waters them down to their shells. For example, in feeding off of the traditional Chinese rice consumption habits, McDonald’s in Hong Kong (pictured below at left) sells Rice Burgers in which meat is sandwiched between two rice patties instead of burger buns. In Greece, their burgers are made of patties wrapped in pita bread. All in all, multinational fast food corporations promote mass-consumerism that is modeled after the American capitalist market.

Evidence of the cultural infection that globalizationists so avidly protest is manifesting in two very prominent aspects. First, companies in other countries are tapping into their people’s obsession with the fast food industry by opening their own chains modeled after their American counterparts. In Hong Kong, for instance, entrepreneurs opened the restaurant Little Sheep, its own version of fast food. Little Sheep, along with other recently opened chains, continues to grow and influence the way the Chinese eat their meals. The fast food industry itself is growing so much that it is suspected to be about worth about $66 million. The second piece of evidence indicating the rapidly increasing prominence of fast food in the international sphere is the existence of a strong counter-movement. Not only are anti-globalizationists against the pressured spread of American cultural influences into civilizations abroad, but there now exists a “slow food” movement that developed as a way to bring people back to the cultural roots of their food and maintain their traditions and values. Slow Food is an organization that was founded in 1989 “to counteract fast food and fast life, the disappearance of local food traditions and people’s dwindling interest in the food they eat, where it comes from, how it tastes and how our food choices affect the rest of the world.” Today, they focus on starting movements in countries where the fast food industry has taken hold and trying to revive the cultural importance of food and revive people’s interest in what they eat. Their very existence is proof that the fast food industry’s move into the international community is a significant one.

But is it possible for the fast food industry to exist while cultural values persist? It seems that the success of the industry not only promotes a faster-paced lifestyle and the adoption of the modern in exchange for the sacrifice of tradition, but also that it is indicative of the growing trend towards a more global market in which consumers prefer an increasingly commercial and universal norm rather than one that is individualistic or regionalized. It is no longer enough to be popular in one’s own country – the true measure of success in this modern world is by becoming globally recognized and appreciated. Thus, I predict that it will become increasingly difficult for real culture to perpetuate itself as it falls victim to “McDonaldization.”
 
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.