Forum Moderators: open
"Unfortunately we are unable to respond to your inquiry because Target does not participate with nontraditional media outlets,"
One Retailer Says No [nytimes.com]
Everyone's a blogger, but that doesn't make everyone a reporter.
The advert is clearly sexist and portrays women as sexual symbols. There is no other reason for that exact arrangement.
I'm sorry but the blogger and the rest that think this is sexist are off their rockers.
It's about as sexist as DaVinci's Vitruvian Man. [en.wikipedia.org]
The Target image is far less objective than DaVinci's, which is considered 'fine art', and the woman in question is fully clothed, and the fact is that she's placed dead center so that the "snow angel" falls fully within the target circle.
As an artist and photographer myself, I think the aesthetics were dead on and people that read into this things that weren't intended need to go examine their puritanical issues before foisting them in the name of the 1st Amendment.
[edited by: incrediBILL at 12:45 am (utc) on Feb. 1, 2008]
As previously noted, the target symbol is their LOGO, so they could hardly do anything with it that couldn't be mischievously interpreted in one way or another. This bogus controversy is just another example of how modern society has turned everyone (including me, don't get me wrong) into an attention whore.
Lets have two examples, a technology blog written by a typical geek, and a national news site. Each run an article on a new piece of software, who's article is more likely to make a good accurate and confidence inspiring read. In this sort of situation the bloger wins hands down.
There are a lot of blogers who do their research and homework and produce excellent content, in some cases far superior to many forms of main stream media.
There are many cases where the news needs to come from a "credible" source before it will have the same sort of impact to the reader. If you want news you can "trust" it's CNN, The BBC or other large media outlet.
I think blogers provide the best content within a niche they dominate, for mainstream the blogers carry opinions, and dont really show the full picture.
Mack.
"Essentially, news is a medium for selling advertising."What an intersting summary of the news media - at its best and worst.
Certainly more so in these days of multi-channel media, yes. But the BBC is one long-standing exception/example (although commercial competition has brought about a dumbing down).
But where I fundamentally disagree with the comment: News media exists to exhort the laws passed by politicians that otherwise would go un-noticed and couldn't possibly be enforced.
Think about it - I often do ;)
In the case of this ad, a person's opinion of it IS in fact relevant information, and so it can be considered "news", whether or not the majority of people agree with that opinion or not. Besides, a person's opinion doesn't need to be verified with other sources, and opinions have ways of catching on...
Kind of like Fox News' longstanding use of the term "Some people say..."
Bloggers are simply walking through doors left open by "official" reporters.
FarmBoy
If you see the image as a Snow Angel in the centre of a circle, it isn't sexist. And not sexual either.
If you see the image as a target over (underneath?) a woman's #*$! and you think that means that the image is implying that women are blow-up dolls with a pulse, then, yes, it is sexist.
Of course it's also possible that you might see the image as a (serious or slightly mischievous) target underneath a woman's #*$! but you think that's okay because you recognise men and women to be sexual beings and you think it's fine for all of us to focus on each other's genitalia from time to time (and it wouldn't have mattered if the advert had shown a target underneath a man's trouser-covered erection) because, after all, that's why we're all here and our sexuality should be celebrated in all sorts of ways. (Yes, even occasionally in an adolescent smutty way). In this case the image is sexual, but not sexist.
Or the image could be a mix of any of the above either overtly or covertly intended or accidental.
At the end of the day what counts however is not what the artistic director intended but how you choose to interpret the image. Ain't Postmodernism wonderful?
As for the journalist / blogger distinction, I would think the most obvious difference is that paid journalists (I would use the word 'professional' but some of them aren't very) have to work to an editorial line and are edited. Bloggers only self-edit, if that.
What you read in a newspaper or see in a TV bulletin is not necessarily what the journalist wanted to say. It is what the media owner wanted to have said, enforced on the reporter by the editor. That is the reality of paid journalism.
<added>Huh?! Lest anyone suspect I used crude language in my post, I am anxious to point out I did not. I am not clear on why the biological term <snip> should be auto-censored.</added>
[edited by: lawman at 5:15 am (utc) on Feb. 2, 2008]
[edit reason] If It's In BT's Filter, lawman's ubiquitous Finger Will Edit A Work-Around [/edit]
Anyway why would anyone take the time to fret over something as innocuous as this? There are SO many ads on TV and in magazines that are deliberately and unmistakably smutty. As the parent of 2 girls, I am constantly coming across inappropriate content and messages in the mainstream media. But dwelling on this example is like reading Playboy and scouring the ice cubes in the ads for the letters S-E-X.
