1. Giroux has to use strong language in order to get our attention about the problems with Disney, and
2. He's arguing that all multinational corporations have too extensive of power and Disney is just an example.
Obviously I disagree with both of these statements. Giroux is directly attacking Disney-- the man literally wrote two articles (and I'm sure many more) that are seventeen years apart, both of which coincidentally talk a whole lot about Disney. SEVENTEEN YEARS is a long time to still be very angrily talking about the SAME topic-- I mean, that has to imply that he has a strong (for lack of a better word) grudge against Disney. Plus, I believe that there's a difference between *strong* language and *aggressive* and *destructive* language with Giroux very much walking on the side of the latter.
On the point of the second statement, Giroux does talk wholesomely about multinational corporations and consumerism in general, BUT again his language is most aggressive against Disney itself. What about Apple? Apple has brainwashed the millennial generation into living and breathing through technology and social media by making it accessible in every form. What about the NBA? They target families, children, wholesome values in order to spike the interest in THEIR business. The same with the NFL. Often times people over look the fact that these are big businesses too! People get wrapped up in their love for a player or a team and forget that it's a business, and the players and teams make decisions ultimately that will make them money.
So, my point is that Giroux IS attacking Disney specifically and that his language very much makes his audience (or at least me) want to love Disney more to make up for how much he hates it-- which ultimately defeats the purpose of his argument in the first place.
Visual representation of Giroux's articles. (Giroux on left, Disney on the right)
No comments:
Post a Comment