Rage Against the Machine is the best example of a band in the musical industry acting subversively. I cannot think of any band that has achieved their level of success by having their entire catalog of songs dedicated to advocating acting subversive against whatever cause they felt necessary to draw listener’s attention towards. Their name even provides a straightforward metaphor that is easy to decipher, machine can be interpreted as meaning a topic they often criticize, government.

Zack de la Rocha, Rage Against the Machine’s front man, has never been shy when discussing subjects most mainstream music tends to avoid because it could been seen as offensive and hurt their reputation. Rather he has embraced the activist role that comes along with the topics the band covers in their songs. Rage Against the Machine’s unique blend of rock and hip-hop (known as rap metal) elements are also another way that they act subversively within the music industry, because traditionally those two genres did not coexist with each other. Zack has even testified in front of a United Nations committee about the content of their song “Voice of the Voiceless”, which was about a possible mishandling of a prosecution of a Black Panther. The fact that a singer for a band was called for questioning in front of an organization that represents over a hundred nations from all over the world shows the reach that their music was, and in some ways still is, able to achieve.

The band’s lead single of their self-titled debut album, “Killing in the Name”, was in response to an event Madison mentioned in her blog post as well, the Rodney King beating. Because they are from Los Angeles, Rage Against the Machine decided that the perfect way to start their career was to release a song that condemned their actions that day, as well as all abuses of power by those with a badge. While a little less controversial than N.W.A.’s insight on the matter, Rage Against the Machine’s single was successful in its own right, as that song is the one people who are not familiar with their music have most certainly heard, with over 82 million streams on Spotify currently. In addition to protesting police brutality, it also called attention to the racism that appeared to be present in various different positions of power: police and politicians alike. The lyrics, “some of those that work forces, are the same that burn crosses”, are repeated several times. These lyrics do not try to conceal their message at all, and it is this sort of bluntness that Rage Against the Machine is known for now. The hook for the song also later calls these forces the “chosen whites” clearly a sarcastic comment meant to make listener’s realize how insane some of the comments being made in support of the police’s actions were because a rational response when hearing that phrase is to be shocked and then ponder what Zack is actually meaning when he said those words. On a side note about this event, the band later decided to cover N.W.A.’s take on the Rodney King incident and release it, to further relate this to Madison’s post.

There are several other really well known songs by Rage Against the Machine that are just as effective at drawing attention to the different causes they are about, showcasing their special talent of creating hit music that can get major air play while talking about very controversial topics on the very far left of the political spectrum. Because this band is the quintessential “fight against the establishment” band I would argue that their subversive music was very effective at it’s goal because they got a world wide audience to listen to their songs about subject matter they felt was important to start a discussion about.

(note that this song/video was released before 9/11 and the Iraq War)

Television is a medium that has existed for a very long time with very little change or competition until very recently. This means that they were able to exist without needing to constantly update their business model, which has led to limitations in how fast they are now able to adapt to the changing market.

Recent emerging companies like YouTube, Netflix and Hulu are examples of the competition facing traditional television providers and networks. These companies have all centered their business model on making viewing television shows easier and more convenient. They are also exposing traditional television provider’s flaws and limitations that have resulted from decades of relative stagnancy by offering products that offer basically everything cable television offers but in a much more portable and accessible format. YouTube offers highlights from television episodes like late night talk shows so that the viewer doesn’t have to watch the less interesting parts that come along with watching it from a cable or satellite provider. They are also offering the opportunity for people to both create an view original content that is drastically different than what is offered on television, which fills a niche market where content can be tailored to a very specific audience or released at a much faster pace then the traditional one new episode per week. One of the strongest examples highlighting that services like YouTube are dominating the modern television landscape is the enormous number of platforms that they have designed applications for to make accessing content as painless as possible. The modern phone, iPad, Xbox and even some television screens all have native apps to make accessing YouTube, Netflix and Hulu as seamless as possible.

Going forward, I think that the traditional television providers could attack the Internet and mobile markets much more aggressively. While some do currently have applications for some of the devices I listed earlier, they are also missing from a lot of other important devices and often times are not nearly as intuitive or user friendly as the newer competitions. Another issue is that because the television providers have to make agreements with the networks actually producing the content, their apps become limited because networks limit which providers can have access to their online content based on contract terms. So while Netflix and YouTube can go after specific content, often times providers have to sign a deal big enough to allow access to all content versus just a few different series. The other major issue that limits televisions reach for the modern day viewer is cost. Services like Netflix and Hulu are less than $10 a month and offer an enormous catalog of both film and television shows that can be accessed basically anywhere where you can find an Internet connection. These services can also be cancelled at anytime if they are no longer wanted. In contrast, a cable or dish subscription comes with at least a year minimum commitment and can cost anywhere from $50 to $150+ a month and are really only convenient to access at home. So a higher cost with less convenience is something that they should address if they want to be able to compete with the new companies on the block.

In summary, television as a medium is changing greatly thanks to a small number of companies streamlining the viewing process. If the traditional outlets want to be able to continue to compete with these new companies they must alter their business model and become much more easy to access while on the go or on your laptop.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has had a very long and public battle with the media to protect her “public image.” In fact, she has tried to control it so much that she is often criticized for her fake personality, as evidenced by the constant comparisons of her personality to that of a robot. However, this is obviously contradictory to her wishes, as being a likable and relatable person is critical to a career politicians success. Her handling of her campaign has taken almost every wrong turn possible, and this leads me to the conclusion that public figures do have some control over how they are perceived by the public at large. Hillary was once a highly-regarded politician, but her mishandling of situation after situation has lead to a decline in overall public image.

With the upcoming presidential elections, and the current fight over who will represent the two main parties, public perception of Hillary Rodham Clinton and every other potential candidate is of utmost importance. However, partly due to her own actions and partly due to media influence, Hillary and her public image have taken a great stumble down in what was once thought to be an easy path to represent the Democrats in the general election. Her involvement in Benghazi and the email server scandal have been the main driving force behind her decline popularity, but her handling (or possibly how the media chose to display her handling) of the situations definitely made things worse. Instead of issuing a statement she was wrong and admitting that it was very, very poor judgement on her part, Hillary decided to fight back against the media. The ultimate downfall here comes from the two ways the media chose to respond to Hillary’s comments. The first plan of attack was to keep researching the scandals and making a much bigger deal out of the situations than they would have, had she chosen not to fight back. The extra research lead to some discoveries that she really did not want to become public, which are having a negative impact on how she is viewed. The other way the media is fighting back against the Hillary machine is by giving more favorable coverage of her opponent and less favorable coverage of her. Hillary has managed to make a very close race out of one that was hers to take through her interactions with the public and the media. When you think that her path to becoming president is in doubt due to a socialist who wants to give away everything for free, an idea that has never been successful in any part of the world, it is clear that her campaign’s actions up to this point have had an impact on her campaign. This impact though is very bad for her public image, and shows that public figures do have some control over their public image, and that they should think long and hard about how certain actions will be perceived. Bernie has made all the right moves (two years ago he was not very well known, whereas Hillary was a name that everyone knew and had some opinion of), Hillary had made all the wrong moves, and that is why the primaries have not been the cake walk Hillary was once thought to have.