An article originally posted by Times Online publicizes advertisements directly towards children. This particle article focuses on a clothing chain, Primark, which recently was marketing and selling a bikini to children as young as seven years old, with a padded top. The bikini itself was not the problem; it was the padded top many organizations found a problem with. Organizations like The Children’s Society and the Phoenix Chief Advocates took action against the sale of this bikini. They boycotted demanding to removal of the bikini. The organizations made claims that the bikini sexualized young girls. The different organizations were disgraced with the sale of this bikini because they claimed it made young girls appear older than they actually were. The clothing line apologized and pulled the bikini from their shelves and said that they would donate all the previous profit form the bikinis to a children’s charity. This clothing chain is not the only one who have marketed and sold such things to young girls. Other chains have marketed sold such things as lingerie and even a pole dancing kit to girls. Organizations like the ones listed above continue to fight to maintain order so that young girls will not be robed of their innocence.
Marketing to children is already a touching topic. Many people feel that marketing anything to children should be banded, but what this clothing chain did was unacceptable. Selling lingerie and padded bras sends signals to young girls. These signals tell them that they need to have sex appeal at such a young age. Also if they appear to be older they will attract older guys, which can lead to more problems. Wearing clothing like this also can alter their mindset and cause them to think thoughts that children should not be thinking at their age. They could possibly be exposed to things that they are not prepared for yet which can lead to self- consciousness. What are your thoughts on this topic?
Paige
Friday, April 23, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Black Entertainment Television Show Does Not Show Enough Diversity?
Monique Imas, professionally known as “Monique,” has been in the comedian/acting business for many years. She is most known for her stand-up comedy, character on the hit show “The Parkers,” and most recently known for her academy award winning performance in “Precious.” She recently got her own show on Black Entertainment Television, BET, called “The Monique Show,” where she showcases old, new, and not so well known musical artist and actors/actresses. However, there are many who are not satisfied with Monique’s guest list. She has been receiving backlash for the lack of diversity, specifically for not having as many white guests as black guest. She has had such guests as Robin Thicke, Ben Taylor, and Brittany Daniel, but those are the very few Caucasians who has made an appearance on the show. People who support the show state, “We need a show like Monique’s to continue to showcase all the Black talent that we otherwise would not see.” While those who are opposed say, “How come you don’t have any white guests on your show? It looks bad.”
Often when turning on the television chances are slim that African Americans are shown as much as those who are white, whether it be in a movie, show, ect… However, if one was watch BET, blacks are the majority shown on the station. There is no surprise that Black Entertainment Television, which was started by Bob Johnson in 1980, gives blacks the opportunity to see others on television who looked just like them. Whereas, many channels, especially years ago, greatly lacked diversity or if African Americans where displayed they were seen in stereotypical roles such as maids, servants, convicts, or even as ignorant people in general. Although, BET was sold to Viacom in 2001, this founding message still survives. BET is one of very few channels dedicated to serving the African American community.
Should “The Monique Show” be scrutinized for not being diversed on a Black television channel? Or is the primary focus on African Americans good for the channel because that is the main aim of BET? Or should Monique showcase a diverse cast of guest to represent society today?
Personally, I believe it is great that the majority of Monique’s guests are African American. This is why the show is on Black Entertainment Television. I may even say that other prime time shows seem to have a majority of guests who are not considered a minority, but there are not as many complaints made about that.“The Monique Show” is a great example of a black operated show that is trying to make the television world, as a whole, more diversed by showcasing minorities who often get scarce air-time elsewhere.
Any thoughts?
http://blogs.bet.com/ontv/primetimeplayback/2010/04/the-monique-show-should-the-show-be-more-diverse/
-Dominique
Often when turning on the television chances are slim that African Americans are shown as much as those who are white, whether it be in a movie, show, ect… However, if one was watch BET, blacks are the majority shown on the station. There is no surprise that Black Entertainment Television, which was started by Bob Johnson in 1980, gives blacks the opportunity to see others on television who looked just like them. Whereas, many channels, especially years ago, greatly lacked diversity or if African Americans where displayed they were seen in stereotypical roles such as maids, servants, convicts, or even as ignorant people in general. Although, BET was sold to Viacom in 2001, this founding message still survives. BET is one of very few channels dedicated to serving the African American community.
Should “The Monique Show” be scrutinized for not being diversed on a Black television channel? Or is the primary focus on African Americans good for the channel because that is the main aim of BET? Or should Monique showcase a diverse cast of guest to represent society today?
Personally, I believe it is great that the majority of Monique’s guests are African American. This is why the show is on Black Entertainment Television. I may even say that other prime time shows seem to have a majority of guests who are not considered a minority, but there are not as many complaints made about that.“The Monique Show” is a great example of a black operated show that is trying to make the television world, as a whole, more diversed by showcasing minorities who often get scarce air-time elsewhere.
Any thoughts?
http://blogs.bet.com/ontv/primetimeplayback/2010/04/the-monique-show-should-the-show-be-more-diverse/
-Dominique
Hitler: Nazi Dictator or Media Guru??
Over the weekend, I was fortuitous enough to travel to Washington, D.C. for a social justice retreat. One of the first and perhaps the most power stops on our trip was a visit to the Holocaust Museum. While at the museum, we saw various portrayals of how poorly Jews were treated during that time period. One particular exhibit called Propaganda stood out to me above the rest. This exhibit talked about Hitler and his regime and how their mastery of modern technology propaganda (use of strong images and simple messages) led them to political prominence. Prior to seeing the exhibit, I figured that Hitler simply had the support of other "bad people;" not once did I stop to consider the methods Hitler used to get people to adopt a certain mindset. As I went through the exhibit, I was able to see how Hitler used media propaganda to influence Germans from local fanatics all the way up through national movements. Hitler recognized how powerful his territory of influence could be if he controlled the media. He arranged it so that radios could only pick up the channels he had control over. There were magazines that solely existed to discover anything negative about the Jews and publish it; when nothing significant was available, they fabricated lies.
It was both sad and interesting to see how much influence the use of media had on Hitler's abilities. As the exhibit showed young German children being swayed by the posters, television shows, movies and radio stations I thought of product placement. If an advertisement is put in the right location and viewed by (enough of) the right people, it has the potential to have a major influence. These young children had no legitimate hatred towards the Jews aside from the fact that "hatred towards the Jews" was all that surrounded them. Product placement can introduce an element of peer pressure where people are either shunned or frowned upon (even by themselves) for not adopting a certain mindset or possessing a certain product.
Hitler, though said to be very intelligent, was one man. No one man can do such damage and cause such hurt to a vast amount of people without assistance. Hitler understood that he could gain control of those around him by controlling their psyche. Hitler duped thousands into an altered moral state by displaying propaganda with themes of moral justice, defense, and necessity. While looking at the exhibit, my attention was torn between empathizing for the Jewish people and families who had been affected by the Nazi Regime and noticing how the media played such a major role as a means for Hitler to gain control. I think it is important to see examples like this and be reminded of how powerful media effects can be.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Some Things You Just Don't Do
The article in the New York Times is written about the use and development of this new feature called Common Sense Media. The article focuses on a teacher and his fourth grade. He is teaching his class how to use the internet and he creates this website so that his class can get on and post things they would like to share with their fellow classmates. The students are able to post their writings, art, surveys, and other things of that nature. A problem came about when the students started using the website to post mean things about their classmates. They would post things that could be looked at as bullying. The teacher wanted to bring in the Common Sense Media, to help his students. This Common Sense Media is aimed to teach the kids how to use the internet properly. It will teach them proper internet behavior, like the do’s and don’ts of internet use. Common Sense Media uses real life situations to get the children’s attention; they do not solely tell the kids what to do and what not to do. This whole idea of the Common Sense Media is said to be in the best interest of the kids so that in the future their employers and college recruiters will not see negative things about them on the internet.
The idea of this Common Sense Media is good for children of this age. Fourth graders are most likely at the age where they think they can do everything on their own. They think they know what they are doing, but in reality they do not. The Common Sense Media will be good for them because they will hopefully learn how to use the internet the right way, and the dangers of using the internet the wrong way. Using real life situations to teach the children is good because they won’t feel like they are getting lectured, but they will still learn.
The fact that the internet is becoming more and more a part of everyday life is push for this Common Sense Media. Another important fact is that children younger and younger are learning how to use the internet. They need to know that the internet is not a place where they can just post anything they feel like posting, especially if it is negative. What are your thoughts on the growing epidemic of internet in the lives of young kids? Is it good or bad? Why?
Comment, tell us what you think,
Paige~
The idea of this Common Sense Media is good for children of this age. Fourth graders are most likely at the age where they think they can do everything on their own. They think they know what they are doing, but in reality they do not. The Common Sense Media will be good for them because they will hopefully learn how to use the internet the right way, and the dangers of using the internet the wrong way. Using real life situations to teach the children is good because they won’t feel like they are getting lectured, but they will still learn.
The fact that the internet is becoming more and more a part of everyday life is push for this Common Sense Media. Another important fact is that children younger and younger are learning how to use the internet. They need to know that the internet is not a place where they can just post anything they feel like posting, especially if it is negative. What are your thoughts on the growing epidemic of internet in the lives of young kids? Is it good or bad? Why?
Comment, tell us what you think,
Paige~
Who died and made Perry President!?
Tyler Perry is a talented and well-known actor, director, etc. He has blown up the box office on numerous occasions with his movies from Madea and all of her hilarious appearances to the tear jerking story of Precious. I recently read a post from another blog site (thecolorcurve.com) where the blogger discussed Tyler Perry, his productions and the impact he is having on the black community. The article basically discussed how we (more specifically black America) has embraced Tyler Perry and his productions as one that strive for "a better black nation," but at the same time we have also made him the President of that nation. He argued that because Tyler Perry's staple black films are so uncontested among other black directors in his genre, he has inadvertently established for himself a "monopoly" giving him to the power to hold the black image in his hand (to a certain degree.) Regardless of the fact that that his movies are successful in the box office year after year, and usually make a lot of people laugh, a lot of people are disturbed with the fact that Tyler Perry has this much power. The blog made a very interesting point when it discussed how there are articulate black people who daily fight against the negative stereotypes that proceed them and refuse to play the role of "da dumb black person." However, for every black lawyer or doctor that Tyler Perry presents, there are an equal amount, if not more, of "loud, ignorant and obnoxious" prostitutes, drug addicts or impoverished characters to compliment it. This causes a sense of embarrassment for the individuals who combat this image. The blog went on to state how because Tyler Perry has vertically integrated the production process, he basically runs his own show and doesn't necessarily have to answer to anybody. Because he is has no real competition in the "family-romantic-comedy-drama" genre, he can pretty much release productions of whatever standard and expect to be successful.
A few things really stuck out to me after reading this blog; especially after seeing Tyler Perry's latest movie production "Why Did I Get Married Too" released just this past week. When the blogger talked about how Tyler Perry keeps his production process "in house" on his 30-acre studio in Atlanta, GA and by doing so controls his outcomes, immediately I thought about vertical integration. Vertical integration is when a company, etc. purchases different aspects of the production process so they do not need to pay for outside sources. When I first learned about vertical integration, I thought it was a wonderful thing- the company is able to cut cost because they supply the necessary goods and services for themselves instead of buying them. When the blog talked about how Tyler Perry was able to release 10 movies in 7 years because he shortcuts a large portion of normal film expenses, I began to see a virtuous characteristic of not being completely vertically integrated: checks and balances. A checks and balances system works because it is, at least in part, a type of accountability. It says that if a certain part of the production starts to slip, it will be "checked" by another part which in the end creates a balanced production. Because Tyler Perry does not have any such system in place, he can produce films that mold the black image with no one to slow him down or raise flags. When I saw his latest film "Why Did I Get Married Too," I was definitely offended to a certain degree. Though I laughed at certain parts, I had a big problem with how some of the characters were portrayed. It seemed as though every upstanding black man, whether he be a lawyer, doctor or just good dude, at some point "snapped" and began yelling at his wife, putting his hands on his wife or even pouring liquor on his wife. When I saw this, I thought about something else I had recently learned regarding familiar stereotypes. Since black people have been allowed on the air, they have constantly struggled with gaining interest at the expense of their image. Usually, instances like this occur when there are white people (typically males) controlling the majority of media. I have a HUGE problem when Tyler Perry, who is esteemed so highly by much of America, even as one who holds the black image in the palm of his hands, puts his own race down and embarrasses them by enslaving them to those very stereotypes. Maybe I am being overly critical, but I do not think one can fill a movie with stereotypical roles and have a 3 min. spin for a happy ending at the conclusion of the film and expect the ending to have the dominant impact.
What now America? What now black America? Should we join together and shun Tyler Perry so that he never has a successful movie production again? Or have him reprimanded for putting labels on the black men and women of America? If these actions are illogical, what actions should we take? Should we even take action? Or is there even a problem to begin with? Personally, I feel that Tyler Perry is a very talented artist. He has a gift and has used his gift not only to be successful in the box office, but also create many job opportunities for [black] workers and actors, make an impact in the lives of underprivileged youth and donate millions to various organizations such as the NAACP. However, he needs competition. I believe Tyler Perry needs someone who will PUSH him and CHALLENGE him to step his game up and find a way to be funny and successful without it being at the expense of someone's image. Would this be hard to do? Of course. But it would be more more rewarding and it is definitely a plausible goal.
PLEASE share your comments with me! You can find the blog I am referring to throughout my blog at http://www.thecolorcurve.com/blog/theintel/the-problem-with-perry/ THANKS BLOGGERS!
Mike
A few things really stuck out to me after reading this blog; especially after seeing Tyler Perry's latest movie production "Why Did I Get Married Too" released just this past week. When the blogger talked about how Tyler Perry keeps his production process "in house" on his 30-acre studio in Atlanta, GA and by doing so controls his outcomes, immediately I thought about vertical integration. Vertical integration is when a company, etc. purchases different aspects of the production process so they do not need to pay for outside sources. When I first learned about vertical integration, I thought it was a wonderful thing- the company is able to cut cost because they supply the necessary goods and services for themselves instead of buying them. When the blog talked about how Tyler Perry was able to release 10 movies in 7 years because he shortcuts a large portion of normal film expenses, I began to see a virtuous characteristic of not being completely vertically integrated: checks and balances. A checks and balances system works because it is, at least in part, a type of accountability. It says that if a certain part of the production starts to slip, it will be "checked" by another part which in the end creates a balanced production. Because Tyler Perry does not have any such system in place, he can produce films that mold the black image with no one to slow him down or raise flags. When I saw his latest film "Why Did I Get Married Too," I was definitely offended to a certain degree. Though I laughed at certain parts, I had a big problem with how some of the characters were portrayed. It seemed as though every upstanding black man, whether he be a lawyer, doctor or just good dude, at some point "snapped" and began yelling at his wife, putting his hands on his wife or even pouring liquor on his wife. When I saw this, I thought about something else I had recently learned regarding familiar stereotypes. Since black people have been allowed on the air, they have constantly struggled with gaining interest at the expense of their image. Usually, instances like this occur when there are white people (typically males) controlling the majority of media. I have a HUGE problem when Tyler Perry, who is esteemed so highly by much of America, even as one who holds the black image in the palm of his hands, puts his own race down and embarrasses them by enslaving them to those very stereotypes. Maybe I am being overly critical, but I do not think one can fill a movie with stereotypical roles and have a 3 min. spin for a happy ending at the conclusion of the film and expect the ending to have the dominant impact.
What now America? What now black America? Should we join together and shun Tyler Perry so that he never has a successful movie production again? Or have him reprimanded for putting labels on the black men and women of America? If these actions are illogical, what actions should we take? Should we even take action? Or is there even a problem to begin with? Personally, I feel that Tyler Perry is a very talented artist. He has a gift and has used his gift not only to be successful in the box office, but also create many job opportunities for [black] workers and actors, make an impact in the lives of underprivileged youth and donate millions to various organizations such as the NAACP. However, he needs competition. I believe Tyler Perry needs someone who will PUSH him and CHALLENGE him to step his game up and find a way to be funny and successful without it being at the expense of someone's image. Would this be hard to do? Of course. But it would be more more rewarding and it is definitely a plausible goal.
PLEASE share your comments with me! You can find the blog I am referring to throughout my blog at http://www.thecolorcurve.com/blog/theintel/the-problem-with-perry/ THANKS BLOGGERS!
Mike
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Oprah's OWN Network
After 25 years of the Oprah Winfrey Show, Oprah is calling it quits. Discovery Communications first announced it was going into business with Winfrey two years ago. Now, Winfrey's “OWN” is finally emerging. “OWN,” Oprah Winfrey Network, will replace the now “Discovery Health” Channel in early 2011. The network will feature, Oprah's Next Chapter, which will be an hour long prime time talk show. The network will also feature, Oprah's Search for the Next TV Star, Why Not? with Shania Twain, Visionaries: Inside the Creative Mind, and Gayle King Live! Discovery Communications will loan up to $100 million dollars to kick start “OWN.” “OWN” is the second television venture for Winfrey, she also co-founded the “Oxygen” Network in 1998.
ABC will need to find a program to take the time slot that the Oprah Winfrey Show has held for years. This may cause ABC to loose money and viewers which decreases ratings. However, for cable television, Winfrey may be embarking on something huge. The media mogul seems to turn anything she touches into gold; therefore, there are high hopes and expectations for “OWN.” The joint venture between Winfrey and Discovery is predicted to make an impact on the cable industry. However, risk aversion is something Winfrey will have to take. Not even she knows what will be popular or not among an audience. Only time will tell.
Oprah is truly a remarkable woman. Her work ethic is one to be admired and even inspires others. Will you watch “OWN?” Do you think “OWN” is a good career path for Oprah? Thoughts?
-Dominique
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Hulu's Ups (and Maybe Soon To Be Downs)
Hulu, a free online video outlet, has plenty to celebrate after three years of success. Hulu has successfully brought television programming into the mainstream. And with talks of going beyond the computer screens with becoming an application for Apple’s iPad, more success is predicted in the year to come. But along with success comes some dissatisfaction. The companies that supply Hulu’s content are pressuring Hulu to set up a subscription service along with earning more advertising dollars. Now, Hulu collects various types of videos and makes them free, supported by advertisements. But if Hulu decides to bring its service to other devices it would be difficult to balance satisfaction among consumers, content companies, and advertisers. Hulu has blocked services that would allow consumers to access content through their television sets, because it would affect cable and satellite subscribers, a steady source for media companies. In order to provide their services for other devices Hulu would have to find new sources of revenue.
Being that online programming is becoming more popular it is putting advertisers into a difficult space. By watching videos online, consumers are not exposed to advertising as much as they would be if they watched actual television. When watching an hour long program on television, viewers are exposed to an average of twelve minutes of advertising, whereas, online viewers are exposed to an average of two-four minutes of advertising. Advertisers try to make profit by using product placement in many of the programs, but is that enough? Online programming outlets, like Hulu, are seeking ways to provide a free service while entering into new device outlets, but without new sources of revenue this may be impossible.
How does this affect the average consumer? People may soon have to pay for online programming. College students and travelers are especially affected because they are the main viewers who access online programming. The growth and popularity of online viewing raises many problems. Companies loose money, while other companies gain money. Where is the balance?
Thoughts?
-Dominique
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
