I miss the old Kanye

Kanye West is the poster-boy of an innovator with a God complex. American culture,
particularly fashion and music, have blossomed out of every trend and person he has
endorsed. For example, prior to the fall of 2015, ripped and holey clothing could only
be found in thrift stores and dumpsters. It was commonly understood that one can't wear a shirt with holes all
over it in public.It exhibited poor taste and poverty. However, once Yeezy Season 1 was
released, and Kanye sported torn and distressed T-shirts from his own brand, the trend
rippled through American fashion as middle-class consumers demanded their own hole-
ridden shirts that were affordable. His influence in music is just as powerful. Chance the
Rapper gained his popular status in the music industry party through Kanye's endorsement
of him. Chance was featured in Kanye's song, "Ultralight Beam," released in 2016. Later
that year when he released his first album on iTunes, “Coloring Book,” it made the top ten
charts. Chance praises and credits Kanye as one of the biggest contributors to his pipe
dreams becoming reality. In short, if Kanye says it’s cool, then it is. But what does this
mean to his fans thatidolize him and are easily susceptible to bandwagon whatever he sings,
says, or tweets?

Earlier this week, Kanye posted a picture of him in ‘Make America Great Again” hat, as
well as several tweets that praised Trump. (Kanye wearing MAGA hat) Twitter was
dumbfounded by his public support of the president, as well as his criticism of Barack
Obama in another tweet. (Kanye's comment on Obama) If Kanye can make torn clothing
become a symbol of expensive taste and start other rappers careers just by advertising
them to his millions of fans, then why shouldn't he be able to shift the political views of the fans who kiss the ground he walks on?

While most news outlets, celebrities, and fans are practically disowning Kanye, he has had
some unconditional support while being under fire. Chance the Rapper and Kanye's wife,
Kim Kardashian, have both tweeted out in defense of Kanye. (Chance's reply, Kim's reply)
In Kim's comment on her husband's endorsement of Trump, I noticed that she spun his values in a positive way. Instead of
commenting on his flawed and insubstantial reasons for liking Trump, Kim said that Kanye
doesn't care about being the most popular and that he "years ahead of his time." Reading
this, I initially thought that Kanye is unique. He doesn't follow the beaten path and he's
proud of it. That can't be so bad right?

When I researched how different news outlets reported about Kanye and Trump were
becoming pals on Twitter, I noted that one side (the conservative side) used similar
language to Kim. The liberal side was far more condemning of Kanye than Republicans were. Fox News posted an article written
by Joy Villa, another African-American Trump supporter in the music industry. (Joy Villa:
"Kanye West supports Trump -- Here’s why his actions are so monumental") In her article,
she said that Kanye has, "come out strongly pro-President Trump." Kanye has clarified in
the past that he doesn't agree entirely with Trump's policies and therefore can not be called strongly pro-Trump. However, by saying that he is "pro-"
something, Villa establishes Kanye is fully supportive to one side of an issue. Instead of "
pro-Trump," she could've said "anti-Obama," and it would've been equally binary.
However, since Villa claims Kanye is behind President Trump, it establishes a link in readers'
minds to all the other things that Kanye has supported. It is already known that when Kanye
says something is cool then it is, so if he is for Trump, then why shouldn't everyone be?
Furthermore, Villa said, "He has challenged the music industry’s identity politics. He’s a
hero to free-minded individuals of all colors." She uses delicate words to describe the
consequences of Kanye's actions, such as "challenged" and "identity." Reading these
sentences alone, Kanye seems a brave free-thinker and someone I should look up to. As a
"hero" to "individuals of all colors," Villa asserts that Kanye's actions were valiant to the
colored community as a whole when in reality, they were only beneficial to Republicans of
color that have not shared their political beliefs in fear of backlash. Her article paints Kanye as
a saint for simply having a controversial opinion that differs from his peers. However, having
such an opinion alone is not enough for one to be considered heroic and deserving of applause
and support, as she implies through the diction of her article. She fails to discuss the colored
community as a whole and only focuses on black conservatives. Yes, it is true that his actions
may have been courageous and long due, but only for black conservatives (such as Villa and Kanye)
that now feel more secure as political minorities. Yet, Kanye's public endorsement of Trump could
have greater negative effects for people of color in the long run. His fans follow him religiously,
and if they vote according to how Kanye says they should, then it could be hurtful to groups that
Trump has targeted (namely people of color.)

On the other side of the spectrum, "The Atlantic" criticises Kanye's sudden praise of Trump and his
hypocrisyabout political issues. (Vann R. Newkirk II: "The 'Dragon Energy' of Kanye West and
Donald Trump") In Newkirk's analysis of Kanye West's antics, he noted Kanye's past assertions vs.
now. "[H]e [Kanye West] pilloried the same Ku Klux Klansmen the president called 'very fine people'
in a video and song called 'Black Skinhead' a few years ago. The man does contain multitudes." It
would've been an equally valid assertion to state that Kanye has changed his mind or (how Villa would
prefer to say) "taken a different path," but saying"multitudes" brings attention to Kanye's hypocrisy and
makes his opinion seem illegitimate. Newkirk goes on to compare Kanye and Trump, saying that they
are more similar than they are different. "Both are tireless self-promoters above all else, and seem to
always react to controversy and even aversion by leaning into it, regardless of who gets hurt in the fallout."
The author's political beliefs are blatantly shown in this sentence through his diction. "self-promoters
above all else" and "regardless of who gets hurt in the fallout" reduce Kanye and Trump to violent
narcissists. They are people who will destroy whatever is their way in order to achieve their own
selfish goals. How can I see the good in Kanye or his actions when he is far too egocentric to produce
anything worth listening to?

To conclude, I believe that between Villa's and Newkirk's articles, both of them abused language in the
way that Geroge Orwell's article "Politics and the English Langauge" states. They are both influenced by
their own political beliefs and use diction in a manipulative way (to some degree) to sway readers instead
of letting them come to their own conclusions.

xoxo,

Maevey

Am I streaming music or streaming advertisements?

Every Spotify, Youtube, and Pandora user has experienced the same frustration and boredom as a result of having to listen to an advertisement before they can watch a video or hear a song, the very reason they're using that streaming service in the first place. In theory, subjecting users to ads in between songs and before videos is a clever idea from companies. After all, I'm not going to just quit watching a video just because Tony the Tiger is telling me to buy Frosted Flakes. I'm not going to stop listening to music just because Del Taco has created more garbage food that it wants me to eat. The ads, while they can be very irritating at some points, are more of an inconvenience than a reason to stop using streaming platforms.

Ironically, companies like Coca-Cola, Kellogs, Apple, and Johnson & Johnson pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to have their ads run on Spotify, Youtube, and the radio. However, in my experience, having those ads interrupt the media experience that I was pursuing just makes me resent them. I feel, if anything, less inclined to buy face wash from St. Ives after they have basically harassed me when all I wanna do is listen to Grimes. Every time I walk by Pampers in the store, I feel physical disgust after them having disrupted me so many times. In my experience, it has been counterproductive for companies to run ads on streaming platforms because it just conditions me to be annoyed by them and less likely to buy their products. It is the equivalent of bad publicity to me.

Another part of ads that air on music or video streaming platforms is the fact that the media platforms provide services (always for an extra charge) that will stop the ads, along with other benefits to make them more appealing. Spotify Premium, for example, has 5 benefits that just regular Spotify does not. It offers no ads, unlimited skips, the ability to download music, the ability to play any track at any time (as opposed to shuffle play), and higher quality audio. Youtube Red allows for offline access to music or videos, no ads, the ability to download things, and even offers original series. For Spotify in particular, they try to encourage more users into paying monthly for Premium by limiting everything that they possibly can about the app.You can't even listen to a song that you want to listen to, you just have to wait for it to come up on shuffle. All these limitations make me feel less inclined to use the app in the first place because it is so inconvenient. This is similar to the way that the ads make me feel. They are so in my face all the time, constant and extreme, that I don't even want to buy the products or use the app. Maybe if the ads were not so frequent and the limitations of the app were not so bad they would be more effective on me. Sometimes less is more!

xoxo,
Maevey

My Relationship with Media

Relationship Status: It's Complicated

How can I define my relationship with media in simple terms, when the word "media" itself is too complex and vast for me to wrap my head around? It is defined as the main means of mass communication, but as basic as that seems, everything from reading my morning briefing, to scrolling through Instagram, to muting the ads that air on television, is classified as an interaction with media.
In order to see how frequently I interact with media on average, I payed particular attention today to advertisements I see, the time I spend on my social media accounts, and news I read or hear. What I realized about myself and the media around me is mind-boggling.

I noticed at least five advertisements in every single one of my classes. I heard them on NPR on the way home from school. They appeared as product placement in the shows I like and blared during commercial breaks. I even heard singers name-drooping brands in the music that I listened to today. This was the first time I have ever tried to be hyper-aware of advertisments and at the end of the day, it was exhausting. When are Coca-Cola and Supreme and Starbucks going to leave me alone? From this annoyance rose my realization that all of these hundreds of advertisements that I have noticed today have always been there, yelling at me to buy their insurance and drink their coffee, but I just have never noticed it before. Ads have so seamlessly slipped into my daily life, as I drive to school every morning and walk from class to class, but they are so common that I don't even realize they're there. It creeps me out when I think about what a huge part of my life they are.

And ads are only one type of media. On a daily basis, I also interact with at least three different forms of social media. I waste hours a day double-tapping and commenting when I could (and should) be doing homework. When I don't have social media for several days, I feel empty, a lesson I learned when I went camping over spring break. Since I was unable to text my friends and connect with my followers, I filled that time by refreshing my phone, checking to see if there was any service. Does this mean I am too dependent on my social media? If not too dependent, then I am certainly obsessed to some extent.

My dependence on the news, my constant need to stay connected through social media, and my perpetual exposure to advertisements is all in only one day's worth of media. So what can I say in general about my relationship with media? I am obsessed yet annoyed at the same time. Either way, both of those emotions are signs that I should interact a little less with media on a daily basis, whatever that means. Maybe I should just become a hermit.

You know you love me, xoxo,
Maevey