Norma: The Fake News The Real News?

Culture jamming is an approach that is used by some individuals to obstruct the media in order to alter the original message and make society think twice about that product or service. It is an offshoot of advertising that seeks to spread suspicion among consumers whether it’s about a product or even related to a political purpose. Smartly, culture jammers use some tactics such as changing logos or an image that goes against the flow and challenges the primary notion. As mentioned in the text book culture jammers are mainly anti-consumerist social movements who are not considered to be a part of the media industry “…culture jamming is a form of communication that can come only from outside commercial culture, not from inside the media industry.” (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2012, p. 214)

Alternative media can be any form of media such as television, radio, internet, magazines or newspapers. The alternative media intends to sarcastically transform the mainstream media and hook us by getting us to question the masses. For example, Nike is a highly reputable brand known mostly for their running shoes. The ad that shows the running shoe with graffiti writing on it about the cost of the shoe for the public and the cost of the shoe coming out of the sweatshop, is intended to make people question whether or not they should buy Nike running shoes. This may sometimes backfire and instead these ads make the consumer remember the brand name as a popular one to buy. Therefore, alternative media is biased towards its own ideology and standpoint and want to make their viewpoints known as well.

Adbusting is defined as destructing ad images to deliver a message and intentionally ruin the reputation of a certain brand. Some examples are: Absolute Vodka “Absolute Hangover” and the Marlboro ad “Moneywaster”. Culture jamming and alternative media play this adbusting game to deliver a negative picture about a certain brand or political viewpoint. Consequently, this negative game may lead to a positive outcome for the sake of the original brand since it helps consumers recall the brand and make it more attractive and in demand. “…the more clever the graffiti, the more negative publicity that it generates, the more likely people are to remember the brand in question when they walk into a shop.” (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2012, p. 224). On the flip side, there will be some critical entanglement and make culture jammers held liable for their own actions “Culture jammers can be sued for brand tarnishment, brand infringement, copyright violation, and even defamation.” (O’Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2012, p. 224)

Jonah Peretti’s case study explains how freedom of expression can go off limits and lead to reveal the truth behind the trustworthy brands. Culture jammers rely on several sorts of media such as email to spread the word within seconds with adbusted ads. Another example is “McLibel’s case” against McDonalds. McLibel used computer mediated communication (CMC) where viewpoints can be exchanged within a glimpse. In my opinion, this sort of reportage is a useful contribution to our public sphere mainly because it directs the eyes toward an ambiguous concern and specifically when it is related to a political influence or action.

Sometimes culture jamming requires changing the media ironically to positively criticise themselves and bring activists together while others focus on devastating a political message. This sort of subversion may lead to some kind of legal implications and revert back on the jammers.