Dreams of a Mass NHL Society.

Mass media impacted the consumer society in a significant way. Mass media was derived out of the movie industry and vaudeville's demise. As movies became more popular and the spread of theaters created an American past-time, consumers were given an introduction to mass culture.
Rosalynd Williams provides a good example of how mass media introduced a different consumer society in her essay "Dreams Worlds of Consumption". Williams provides the example of department stores. Department stores were a new thing, the freedom to browse and fantasize about owning things while not being obligated to buy them. As well, this introduced a different setting for shopping. No longer did consumers have a large say in how prices were established, giving way to a more corporate world. Department stores were organized to inflame and increase the desires of materials things and feelings. Expositions, trade fairs, and even amusement parks are other examples of this mass consumer society. These events and services can hold thousands of people and offer a multitude of things to do, buy, and see. Electrical lighting played a huge role in mass consumer society. In the 1900 exposition it was the first time electrical lighting was used on a mass scale, showing how artificial light and how useful it is. As with corporate department stores, lighting was immediately exploited for commercial purposes. This allowed the progress of advertisement billboards, and initiated the start of a consumer society where products are mass produced and mass distributed.
Jackson Lears essay entitled, "Advertising and the Idea of Mass Society" shows a different aspect of how consumer society came about, through advertising. Advertisers' outlook on how to appeal to consumers changed drastically with a new sensibility, that the office men of the time needed to vent frustration and and longing through purchases. Advertisers' continued to view their audience as a childlike culture, that consumers were easily pleased. This gave way to products that were cheaply made and sold for higher prices.
Advertisements can promise a lot of things, from sunny beach vacations to a vaccum cleaner that will never clog or jam. The National Hockey League recently published an advertisement for a special rebate offer on the NHL Game Center Live, an internet service that allows buyers to watch any NHL game in TV-quality streaming. My initial reaction to this ad was one of interest. I am a big hockey fan and I love going to see the Capitals and watching their games on television. I don't have a television in my dorm room, so this sparked my interest a great deal. I also noticed how they put a large emphasis on the "Live" aspect, that is, watching games in real-time and not a pre-recorded version of them. The advertisement is very straight forward; it has a black background, the NHL logo, and the text saying "NHL Game Center Live." I noticed that "Live" is blue text while the rest is white, giving it emphasis and showing what exactly the advertisement offers. I think the advertisement is mostly black and white because that is predominantly the setting of a hockey rink. The ice in its majority is white and the puck is black. This seems like the NHL is trying to attract older hockey fans. Older meaning they have followed the sport longer than most, not that they are necessarily older in age. It seems very obvious what the NHL is offering. It is a paid service that allows buyers to watch NHL games live and on the internet at a discounted price until the special offer expires. My initial reaction to the "special offer" part of the advertisement was that of skepticism. I feel as though when special offers are presented to consumers as a ploy to convince them to buy something. While this is the obvious aim of an advertisement, I'm not sure that it's actually a fair deal. How do we know that the special offer isn't overpriced and the original price isn't marketed higher to make a better profit on sales?
After studying the advertisement, I think I would react differently if I saw it again. I would be more aware of what it is offering, how much it will cost me, and as well what audience the NHL is targeting. The NHL is promising that I would be able to view any NHL game I wanted, live, or at a later date. This applies to the dreams or ideals of the hockey society in a few key ways. Firstly, any big hockey fan would love to be able to watch every game of their favorite team, but time constraints, jobs, and families can likely interfere with leisure time and watching the games on television. The audience the NHL is targetting would be more likely to purchase this package if one, they did not have access to watch the games, or it would be cheaper than paying for a television package to watch every game. I certainly would purchase this package were it not for myself being a poor college student.

The First Presidential Debate

Both candidates in the debate seemed to avoid specific answers to the questions asked. Dan Kenitz states in his post on BipolarNation that McCain did a better job. I disagree however. McCain seemed almost agitated and antsy when answering his questions, as well he didn't seem very attentive to Obama's responses. I do agree with Kenitz that neither candidate had a blowout. They seemed to argue more about the economy than discussing other issues, like foreign policy. I also agree with Kenitz that while Obama isn't the best debater, McCain's strange facial gestures (that weird smile he makes when Obama criticizes him) distracted me from his own points. The fact that both candidates spent a half hour on the economy rather than on foreign affairs is troubling, not to mention it's hard to make a good impression on what each candidate believes about foreign policy. Kenitz argument that McCain held his own in the debate seems laughable to me. It really felt like McCain didn't know anything about the facts he was stating. The fact that Republicans want to give Obama a hard time for not remembering the name of the soldier on his wristband seems like they want to avoid the real issues. Kenitz also claims that Obama is smug, when he looked down to see the name of the soldier. This seems like a personal attack on Obama, detracting from the real problems. To be honest and clear, a candidates personal life is really of no importance, as long as they deliver on the goods and promises they make when running for office. If a man saves 100 people and goes home to beat his wife (unlikely), it isn't the public's judgment that particularly matters. Our personal life is personal. Kenitz makes an argument that neither candidate won, and that people generally "think their candidate won." He claims ironically that you could put Cookie Monster from Sesame Street on the debate and he would win because of his "insistence on spelling and constant reference to the word cookies." It's hard to believe that Dan Kenitz actually watched the debate after this statement. I do think Obama was better off after the debate that McCain. Obama gave much more specific answers though he wasn't always on topic. Obama seemed like he was giving answers, while McCain just spat out babble. It was hard to understand McCain's stance on the issues, like the bail-out plan for mortgages. In Kenitz final statement, he makes the case that McCain was more specific about his answers to foreign policy questions, like about what countries he has been to and when. It seems completely irrelevant to the debate though. Is it very essential to know when a candidate has been in another country? Not unless it's an inquiry into what they were doing there, and this doesn't seem like the case for either candidate. I'm curious about the next debate and if Obama or McCain will change their stance on an issue.