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
Thursday, April 1, 2010
video rape game- fun for everyone?
In this disturbing article, the topic of raping in video games is causing much concern in Japan. Considering the United States get some (but not all) video games from Japan, this is cause for concern here as well. These games, called Hentai, feature "girlish looking characters" becoming victims of rape, bondage, and torture- in vivid detail. One game, which goes unnamed, asks the players to complete the goal of finding their boss who fired them from their imaginary job and raping her. The argument with these gruesome games is whether they are discriminatory towards woman or are simply "trying to fulfuil a fantasty." While these games are not considered "new" in Japan, the issue at hand is that these games are now available worldwide via Internet. Needless to say, "furious" is an understatement when refering to women's rights groups. Taina Bien-Aime, executive director in New York, says, "These sorts of games that normalize extreme sexual violence against women and girls have really no place in our communities." The article points out that one game is even called RapeLay!
According to women's rights groups, regulation of the games in Japan need to be more strict and the content of these games need to be less violent and discriminatory. Suspiciously, Japanese officials would not comment on camera or make a statement, but one anonymous official said the government realizes this is a growing problem and will be checking into whether or not self-policing by the gaming industry is enough. Confusingly, the genitalia are censored in some of these games, yet the themes are not.
Obviously, there are many way this affects the United States as a whole. First of all, children are starting at a younger age to become familiar with the internet. If they simply tell their parents they are buying a video game and the parents do not look into the content of the game, these derogatory games could easily fall into the lap of growing children. Children, for the most part, are visual learners and at some point in their growth, tend to mirror everything they see. If they grow up with the mindset that doing these things to women are considered normal, what kind of generation will they be? They will spread the words and ideas to their friends and it will spread like wildfire. If they start at a young age to treat women (or girls) inferior, this will stick with them throughout their life and we could quite possibly go back to the times when women were actually inferior. It would be a huge step back in history if we did this. While I see the other side of the argument (freedom of speech and content through video games and ratings should deter young children from looking at this content), we all know that this will not stop these games from getting into children's hands.
As a woman, I was literally appalled when I read this article. I had to reread it the article to make sure I was getting the correct message. How anyone could want to play games that feature such disgusting and inferior treatment to any race, sex, etc, is beyond me.
check it out. it's extremely disturbing and to me, frustrating, annoying, etc!
http://www.wjactv.com/news/23013827/detail.html
According to women's rights groups, regulation of the games in Japan need to be more strict and the content of these games need to be less violent and discriminatory. Suspiciously, Japanese officials would not comment on camera or make a statement, but one anonymous official said the government realizes this is a growing problem and will be checking into whether or not self-policing by the gaming industry is enough. Confusingly, the genitalia are censored in some of these games, yet the themes are not.
Obviously, there are many way this affects the United States as a whole. First of all, children are starting at a younger age to become familiar with the internet. If they simply tell their parents they are buying a video game and the parents do not look into the content of the game, these derogatory games could easily fall into the lap of growing children. Children, for the most part, are visual learners and at some point in their growth, tend to mirror everything they see. If they grow up with the mindset that doing these things to women are considered normal, what kind of generation will they be? They will spread the words and ideas to their friends and it will spread like wildfire. If they start at a young age to treat women (or girls) inferior, this will stick with them throughout their life and we could quite possibly go back to the times when women were actually inferior. It would be a huge step back in history if we did this. While I see the other side of the argument (freedom of speech and content through video games and ratings should deter young children from looking at this content), we all know that this will not stop these games from getting into children's hands.
As a woman, I was literally appalled when I read this article. I had to reread it the article to make sure I was getting the correct message. How anyone could want to play games that feature such disgusting and inferior treatment to any race, sex, etc, is beyond me.
check it out. it's extremely disturbing and to me, frustrating, annoying, etc!
http://www.wjactv.com/news/23013827/detail.html
Friday, March 26, 2010
tea party!
Last weekend, hours before the final vote for the new Health Care came in, protestors were reported, saying the protestors were saying racist slurs, homophobic terms, and even spitting- all towards Democratic lawmakers. However, some of the protestors are complaining about the media, saying they exaggerated it. This article points out what happened and what claimed to have happened. Apparently, there are at least three claims of negative behavior. An example of this behavior that the article points out is claiming that the group began chanting the N-word. Two of the lawmakers walking by are African American. Another claim is someone calling a lawmaker "faggot" and then everyone bursting into laughter. The worse claim, however, is a lawmaker being spit upon. Though police had someone in custody for this disgusting act, the man decided not to press charges. The other side of the argmument is that the crowd was chanting "Kill the Bill" not the racist slur. Whether they are simply to do "damage control" or not, it's unclear. There are many other links connecting to interesting related articles, bringing up questions such as if the lawmakers were simply playing "the race card." However, there is also the exact opposite view that the lawmakers "brushed it off" and are handling it seriously.
This effects us as a society in so many ways. First of all, how is degrading any race or sexual preference related to the new Health Care system? The protestors were simply taking out their anger and frustration on the innocence of the lawmaker's race. On top of that, if the lawmakers are simply brushing this occasion off and not handling it properly, isn't that telling the protestors what they are doing and saying is okay? This is evidence of racisms and discrimination still existing in our world today. The protestors were not seeing the world simply trying to make a better health care system- in their eyes, people of a lower race or sexual preference are making laws they won't follow. This could cause so much trouble and disruption if they continue thinking this way.
Audra
check it out- http://theweek.com/article/index/201108/Tea_Party_racism_Truth_or_fiction
This effects us as a society in so many ways. First of all, how is degrading any race or sexual preference related to the new Health Care system? The protestors were simply taking out their anger and frustration on the innocence of the lawmaker's race. On top of that, if the lawmakers are simply brushing this occasion off and not handling it properly, isn't that telling the protestors what they are doing and saying is okay? This is evidence of racisms and discrimination still existing in our world today. The protestors were not seeing the world simply trying to make a better health care system- in their eyes, people of a lower race or sexual preference are making laws they won't follow. This could cause so much trouble and disruption if they continue thinking this way.
Audra
check it out- http://theweek.com/article/index/201108/Tea_Party_racism_Truth_or_fiction
Jet Magazine... Why?
Over spring break, I was lounging around my house watching TV being unproductive when I noticed a Jet Magazine resting on the arm of the couch. As I begin to flip through the magazine, I came across an advertisement for a DVD collection. The ad was for the complete season of Amos n' Andy. Immediately in my head I said "Oh! Amos n' Andy!" Being that I'm just a lowly (late) 80's baby, I never had the opportunity to see the show when it was on the air; however, I have heard a lot about the show- mainly from conversations in my media course. As I continued to read the advertisement, it read something along the lines of 'Purchase your copy of the complete season of Amos n' Andy today. One of the funniest television shows ever!' The rest of the advertisement proceeded to compliment and promote the sale of the show. Not long after I had read the ad in its entirety did the irony of this ad occur to me.
When we discussed the show Amos n' Andy in my media class, it was in a much different light. We first examined an excerpt by Herman Gray called The Politics of Representation in Network Television. Here, Gray analyzed different aspects of representation in the media, especially among minorities. It illuminated the fact minorities tend to fit very familiar stereotypical roles in the media. Amos n' Andy, though considered one of the funniest shows ever, is also considered one of the most racist as well. The show was so racist in fact that it was eventually removed from the air by the NAACP. I found it extremely ironic that a show such as this would be advertised in Jet, a magazine that targets a black audience.
When Amos n' Andy first aired, it was during a time when it was rare to see black actors on television at all. I believe that the integration of different minorities into network television is by all means an achievement to be acknowledged; however, I don't believe that blacks and other minorities should accept these positions at their own expense. By Amos n' Andy being promoted in such a way to a black community (target readers) I feel that in many regards it makes allowances for such portrayals as acceptable norms.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
What about the message your sending.....
Recently The New York Times covered a controversy that was stirred up from a particular jungle gym in a local New York City Housing Authority playground. This jungle was set up to look like a jail. It is painted orange with crow bars and the word jail painted across the top. This playground is located in a historically black neighborhood in Brooklyn. Residents of the neighborhood were outraged because of the message it sent to the children of the community. Local newspapers wrote articles about the jungle gym and the housing authority caught notice. Eventually employees of the New York City Housing Authority went out to the playground and painted over the jungle gym in hopes to fix the mistake they made.
This jungle gym sends off a serious message that jail is fun and not something to take seriously. Though kids may not think much of it, it definitely sends them a message that jail must not be that bad if it is in a playground. When designing a playground, I would think that the designer would think of things a child would be drawn to and eventually like to play with. A jail is not something a child should play with like it is fun.
The recent readings I’ve done about violence in the media immediately came to my mind when reading the original article on this story. Violence in the media is very much displayed and also has proved to have great effects on children. Kids may play games that involve “good guys” and “bad guys,” just like they see on television or in movies. They may play these games in the playground and send the bad guys to the jungle gym labeled “Jail.” To kids this may be all in fun, but studies have shown that the violence they see in the media or the violence they may practice in the playground follows them as they grow up and get older. This can cause them to act out or have serious behavior problems in the future. This playground just like the violence seen in the media sends messages to kids making them think that violence and jail is a regular part of life. Though the violence is widely displayed we must not accept it as the norm, just like the residents of the neighborhood didn’t. They made it known that their children will not be subject to jail and had it removed from their neighborhood. What are some of your thoughts?
This jungle gym sends off a serious message that jail is fun and not something to take seriously. Though kids may not think much of it, it definitely sends them a message that jail must not be that bad if it is in a playground. When designing a playground, I would think that the designer would think of things a child would be drawn to and eventually like to play with. A jail is not something a child should play with like it is fun.
The recent readings I’ve done about violence in the media immediately came to my mind when reading the original article on this story. Violence in the media is very much displayed and also has proved to have great effects on children. Kids may play games that involve “good guys” and “bad guys,” just like they see on television or in movies. They may play these games in the playground and send the bad guys to the jungle gym labeled “Jail.” To kids this may be all in fun, but studies have shown that the violence they see in the media or the violence they may practice in the playground follows them as they grow up and get older. This can cause them to act out or have serious behavior problems in the future. This playground just like the violence seen in the media sends messages to kids making them think that violence and jail is a regular part of life. Though the violence is widely displayed we must not accept it as the norm, just like the residents of the neighborhood didn’t. They made it known that their children will not be subject to jail and had it removed from their neighborhood. What are some of your thoughts? Thanx for your time,
Paige
No Social Media on the Clock!
Anthony Balderrama, in his article Social Media at Work -- Bane or Boon?, discusses how many employment companies are beginning to ban the use of social media sites like Facebook and Myspace. He talks about how some employers feel as though these sites and others like it are preventing people from working harder, staying focused, and could have the potential to "post confidential, sensitive or private information." Balderrma finds that "10 percent [of companies] have taken disciplinary actions against an employee who violated social networking policies in the past 12 months. 8 percent [of companies] terminated an employee for violating a social networking policy. 45 percent [of companies] are highly concerned about unauthorized information being posted on social networks." While employers think this is the right thing to do, many employees disagree. Nan York, an interviewee of Balderrama, negatively reacts to her boss's blocking several sites, including Facebook. York says, "I am not more productive for it. I worked hard for my employer before the ban, and appreciated having something I really enjoyed doing in my few minutes of break from my work. I am a grown-up and take my grown-up responsibilities very seriously -- from paying my bills to doing my work. I don't need stodgy, out-of-touch corporate drones to censure me." This type of response is common among employees who have been banned from social media sites at work. However, even if the company bans the sites from their computers, employees can still access these sites from their smart phones, or iPods. So are companies really "meeting their goal?"
Why is this important? Well, Facebook and other social media sites are not going anywhere. Even if some people think that these are just fads, and will soon disappear like other things, I dare to say they won't. Although it may be true that too many employees waste too much time on social media sites, it is also true that companies can get more "publicity" from sites like these. If companies continue to ban these sites, could their companies being to suffer? It is also important that we know what some employers are doing so that if we are at a place that has these bans, we will understand that these companies are serious and not afraid to fire people for breaking their rules. We might think they are being silly, but is Facebook worth loosing a job?
I think companies and employers stress limiting the time a person spends on a social media site in hopes to insure hard work and constant focus. Banning people from using these sites, seem ineffective to me. I would rather companies encourage employees to promote their work place on social media sites so that they could gain more publicity.
What do you think? Lets talk about this!
~Lexi
Why is this important? Well, Facebook and other social media sites are not going anywhere. Even if some people think that these are just fads, and will soon disappear like other things, I dare to say they won't. Although it may be true that too many employees waste too much time on social media sites, it is also true that companies can get more "publicity" from sites like these. If companies continue to ban these sites, could their companies being to suffer? It is also important that we know what some employers are doing so that if we are at a place that has these bans, we will understand that these companies are serious and not afraid to fire people for breaking their rules. We might think they are being silly, but is Facebook worth loosing a job?
I think companies and employers stress limiting the time a person spends on a social media site in hopes to insure hard work and constant focus. Banning people from using these sites, seem ineffective to me. I would rather companies encourage employees to promote their work place on social media sites so that they could gain more publicity.
What do you think? Lets talk about this!
~Lexi
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Racism against....who???
On ABC News website, I found what I thought to be a shocking article. An American man, though exact location is not mentioned, who owns the website Encyclopedia Dramatica has apparently posted "racist descriptions of Aboriginals." If you are like me, you 1. don't know what Encyclopedia Dramatica is and 2. don't really know what Aboriginals are. I did a little research. Encyclopedia Dramatica is website that features half naked women, profanity, and has advice on how to pick up chicks and make "retards" less "retarded." I'm sure this is offensive to everyone. Nevertheless, whatever comment he made about "aboriginals" (this goes unnamed), was offensive enough to cause Google to take the website off Australian web searches and have the Human Rights Commission filing suit against them. On top of that, a letter was written to the site's owner, signed with twenty complaints. Instead of addressing the situation, the website's owner laughed, claiming "Encyclopedia Dramatica will never be censored." The owner then went on to say, "We will keep publishing this content and our Australian users will be able to view it up until the point that your God-forsaken government blocks it with their soon-to-be-implemented secret list of banned material." He must not realize how serious he has offended some Australians, as his lawyer advises him never to visit Australia. The owner claims the article was written by actual Australians and it is making fun of racists, such as the movie Borat makes fun of anti-Semitism.
The problem with this is, not all Australians think it's funny. For those who have personally experienced racist slurs or actions against them, the article is simply making fun of it. Racism is something that should we taken seriously. If we joke about it, how will we know when to joke and when to be serious? However, on the other side of the argument, the website has their freedom of speech and press- people don't have to look at their website. Either way, it's still deeply offensive to everyone. Whether or not they look, the racist words still exist and hurt people. We as a society should care because this could happen to any of us. Personally, if there was a website that was making fun of Italians, I'd probably be offended and annoyed. With any heritage, ethnicity, or backround, it's easier to face the truth that some people truly treat others differently because of these qualities instead of joking about it and pretending like it's all funny.
-Audra
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/18/2849731.htm?section=justin
The problem with this is, not all Australians think it's funny. For those who have personally experienced racist slurs or actions against them, the article is simply making fun of it. Racism is something that should we taken seriously. If we joke about it, how will we know when to joke and when to be serious? However, on the other side of the argument, the website has their freedom of speech and press- people don't have to look at their website. Either way, it's still deeply offensive to everyone. Whether or not they look, the racist words still exist and hurt people. We as a society should care because this could happen to any of us. Personally, if there was a website that was making fun of Italians, I'd probably be offended and annoyed. With any heritage, ethnicity, or backround, it's easier to face the truth that some people truly treat others differently because of these qualities instead of joking about it and pretending like it's all funny.
-Audra
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/18/2849731.htm?section=justin
Acting No Longer Requires An Actor; Just A Computer
Soon will actors no longer be needed in movies? Maybe. With technology advancing continuously, it seems that this may one day become true. This has been shown countless times already in movies such as The Polar Express (2004), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008), and most recently in Avatar (2009). The characters in these films were created through new aged technology that resulted in digitized actors. In the past, studios paid enormous amounts of money on actors and less money on technology; however, now it is vice versa. Movies are costing studios hundreds of millions of dollars, while actors are only getting paid a small fraction of that price. There has been talk saying that filmmakers are experimenting with new ways to make today’s animations seem more realistic and even bring back dead actors into modern movies. The world may be approaching a time when actors are no longer needed. But what effects would this have on the media industry?
This modern form of filmmaking is a great example of cost cutting to make a substantial profit. Although studios are spending more on technology and less on the actual actors, the money put out comes back in. Along with a big hit movie comes great profit. For instance, Transformers (2007) had a $200 million budget, but earned $835 million in the box office; a massive profit. Also, not only are actors being replaced by technology, but extras are also less needed. Therefore, the people who once starred in movies are loosing out on an enormous amount of money.
Today, when a new technology is formed or even closely perfected, people barely think of the consequences it may have later. Will this modern way of filmmaking be good for mass media? Or will it have a negative effect on mass media and even society later? –Any Thoughts?
-Dominique
March 15, 2010- Forbes Magazine
“A Star is Reborn” –Dorothy Pomerantz
Friday, March 12, 2010
What????? Im on Google......
The article by Sarah Perez from The New York Times points out very important information the public should know about their Facebook privacy. In December, Facebook changed the settings of its users to an automatic default setting. This article informs us that more people have access to personal information on Facebook than we most often think they do. In fact search engines now have access to Facebook profiles. This was something I did not know about myself, so I tried it. If you go to Google and type in a person’s name, if they have a Facebook account their profile will come up. Anybody can have access to all kinds of information like status updates, pictures, personal information, and any other information you post on Facebook . So how do you control it? This question is vital and is the key to controlling who has access to your information. The article provides step by step instructions on how to control who has access to your information. The steps are simple and will make all the difference in your privacy.
A lot of people are so focused on what is happening on Facebook like who sent them a message, who sent them a friend request, and others things of that nature that they don’t stop and think about the privacy of their information. The article is very important because a lot of the time articles and stories make us aware that many people are able to see our information and we they tell us that we can do something to stop it, but they don’t tell us how exactly to do it. Many times people assume that once we know that this is going on, we will just be able to it ourselves. With technology being the way that it is, it can be confusing a lot of the time. Knowledge that comes naturally to some may not come as naturally to others. The article compelled me to go and check what the privacy settings are on my Facebook. I encourage everyone to do the same, though it may not sound like a big deal, you never know what a little bit of personal information can and will do to a person. Check out the aritcle and take back control on you information...
Paige
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Why does it seem that something may flop in one place but when placed elsewhere, may potentially take off? Perhaps it goes back to a trite phrase I've heard my mother say my entire life: location, location, location. I was recently reviewing an article in Wired Magazine called the Biggest Loser as they talked about Kevin Smith. Maybe your initial reaction to that name was similar to mine: Kevin who? Or depending on where you look, the exact opposite; something more along the lines of "How do not know Kevin Smith!?" Apparently Kevin Smith is an actor, screenwriter and film director who worked on the movie Clerks (Heard good things, haven't personally seen it). The article discussed how after the making of Clerks, Smith has had a very difficult time rekindling old flames and creating another successful production. Wired actually interview Smith to get a first hand update of his current status. Smith stated how he has been very successful recently thanks to use of a different medium, the internet. With the recent debut of sites such as twitter, Smith believes he has finally found "his thing" with over a million followers on Twitter. Smith accredits his filthy conversation as his only means success. How can the same R-rated dirty mouth flop on the big screen yet prosper on the internet?
The first thing that came to mind was a discussion about ad placement we had in one of my classes. We basically talked about how certain products, services, etc. are advertised or "placed" in specific areas to attract the desired audience. For example, Ralph Lauren (though worn by a wide variety of people) is typically advertised in upscale locations where they know it will be seen by people with enough disposable income to buy their product. In the same way that ad placement works to attract a certain audience, the same principles apply saying that if a product is placed in the wrong environment, it may not yield successful results. Although there are plenty of popular movies with dirty jokes, if the coarse joking exceeds the generally acceptable level, it may lose readers. Because Kevin Smith admits to having such a filthy mouth and the boldness to make bold statements that nobody who was the least concerned about being politically correct would dare make, it is possible that he has been more successful through online feeds such as twitter and podcast because this type of placement is more accepting of his...style!
So what- some guys sucked at making movies but is a big-shot online? Ad placement is an extremely underestimated force in the media and is capable of doing just as much good as it could bad. In Kevin Smith's situation, it was discussion and movie feedback that ad placement affected; however, there are instance when valuable information is at stake. Occasionally, reputable newspapers will raise the cost of their paper in lower income areas and lower the cost in higher income areas in order to target audiences. This can potentially limit a certain area from to only being exposed to a certain amount of knowledge (at least through that medium) which can inadvertently have a snowball effect. Please feel free to share your thoughts.
The first thing that came to mind was a discussion about ad placement we had in one of my classes. We basically talked about how certain products, services, etc. are advertised or "placed" in specific areas to attract the desired audience. For example, Ralph Lauren (though worn by a wide variety of people) is typically advertised in upscale locations where they know it will be seen by people with enough disposable income to buy their product. In the same way that ad placement works to attract a certain audience, the same principles apply saying that if a product is placed in the wrong environment, it may not yield successful results. Although there are plenty of popular movies with dirty jokes, if the coarse joking exceeds the generally acceptable level, it may lose readers. Because Kevin Smith admits to having such a filthy mouth and the boldness to make bold statements that nobody who was the least concerned about being politically correct would dare make, it is possible that he has been more successful through online feeds such as twitter and podcast because this type of placement is more accepting of his...style!
So what- some guys sucked at making movies but is a big-shot online? Ad placement is an extremely underestimated force in the media and is capable of doing just as much good as it could bad. In Kevin Smith's situation, it was discussion and movie feedback that ad placement affected; however, there are instance when valuable information is at stake. Occasionally, reputable newspapers will raise the cost of their paper in lower income areas and lower the cost in higher income areas in order to target audiences. This can potentially limit a certain area from to only being exposed to a certain amount of knowledge (at least through that medium) which can inadvertently have a snowball effect. Please feel free to share your thoughts.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
schwarzenegger lays down the law.
University of California is usually a fun, sunny campus. However, recently, racism has rocked the campus. The causing factor that started racist riots? A student admitted to hanging a noose from a campus library bookcase. A few days later, on Feb.15, an off campus party known as "Compton Cookout" apparently mocked Black History Month. Numerous protests broke out because of this. The escalating point was the party that defended this actions- on a campus television show, a "derogatory term about blacks" was used. On top of that, at another spot on campus and one month before, eleven students were arrested for disturbing a speech by the Israeli Ambassador. According to the article, "A New York City-based Zionist group quickly urged college bound students to drop the school as a consideration and asked donors to rethink their pledges." As a Muslim civil rights group asked for the charges to be dropped against these people, they were shocked with the information that no charges had been filed. Schwarzenegger is quoted to have said, "[he is] condemning the intolerable acts of racism and incivility that recently occurred on multiple campuses in the University of California higher education system."
The problem with this seems to be that this is not just one incident. Racism seems to be spreading like wildfire across the Californian campus. Why is this happening? Protest groups are breaking out everywhere. I can't help but wonder if this story was only made known because of Schwarzenegger's fame. The last straw with Schwarzenegger was the racial slur that was said on the campus television show. Though the slur goes unnamed, I'm sure we all have an idea of what it was. Schwarzenegger is teaming up with the President of the college and other important figures to make these actions stop. However, there is the argument of freedom of speech and freedom of press, press being the television show. However, freedom of speech and press is regulated and when it crosses the line into the degrading of others, government is allowed to step in, just as Schwarzenegger and other officials do here.
So...why does this matter and why should we care? Because millions of people go to college- is this what we go to college for? College is supposed to be a place of learning and education. Everyone is supposed to be treated the same and feel accepted. Hanging nooses and using degrading terms will cause schools to split and protests, such as the ones above, will explode out. Look how fast racism spread through that campus- there was more than one incident. Each student is affected by that- whether they are angry because they are black and don't want to be degraded or because they are white and they want their fellow white students to have their freedom. They turn against each other and are divided by color. What if we went back to times when blacks had their own entrances and we weren't allowed to mix races, whether it be in school or in relationships? This would affect all of us and would be a major step back in American history.
check out the website!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/schwarzenegger-condemns-intolerable-acts-of-racism-at-uc-san-diego-other-campuses.html
-Audra
The problem with this seems to be that this is not just one incident. Racism seems to be spreading like wildfire across the Californian campus. Why is this happening? Protest groups are breaking out everywhere. I can't help but wonder if this story was only made known because of Schwarzenegger's fame. The last straw with Schwarzenegger was the racial slur that was said on the campus television show. Though the slur goes unnamed, I'm sure we all have an idea of what it was. Schwarzenegger is teaming up with the President of the college and other important figures to make these actions stop. However, there is the argument of freedom of speech and freedom of press, press being the television show. However, freedom of speech and press is regulated and when it crosses the line into the degrading of others, government is allowed to step in, just as Schwarzenegger and other officials do here.
So...why does this matter and why should we care? Because millions of people go to college- is this what we go to college for? College is supposed to be a place of learning and education. Everyone is supposed to be treated the same and feel accepted. Hanging nooses and using degrading terms will cause schools to split and protests, such as the ones above, will explode out. Look how fast racism spread through that campus- there was more than one incident. Each student is affected by that- whether they are angry because they are black and don't want to be degraded or because they are white and they want their fellow white students to have their freedom. They turn against each other and are divided by color. What if we went back to times when blacks had their own entrances and we weren't allowed to mix races, whether it be in school or in relationships? This would affect all of us and would be a major step back in American history.
check out the website!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/schwarzenegger-condemns-intolerable-acts-of-racism-at-uc-san-diego-other-campuses.html
-Audra
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Facebook Status Keeps Man out of Jail.
The New York Times published a story titled, I’m Innocent. Just Check My Status on Facebook It was about a young New York City native,Rodney Bradford. He was suspected of "robbery at the Farragut Houses in Brooklyn." Bradford, used his Facebook status as his alibi to prove to the courts that during the time of the robbery, he was in his father's house. "The district attorney subpoenaed Facebook to verify that the words had been typed from a computer at an apartment at 71 West 118th Street in Manhattan, the home of Mr. Bradford’s father. When that was confirmed, the charges were dropped."
This article is important for many a couple of reasons. One it is a warning to parents who are afraid when their Facebookers update their status every minute they change their locations. Parents should now be happy, because Facebook could keep prove their child's innocence. Secondly, it shows how the medium of technology moves faster than the laws. This is the first case in which a social networking page, such as Facebook, was allowed as an alibi, in previous cases it was used as "as prosecutorial evidence".
I really liked this article. I am a frequent Facebook user and an excessive status updater. My mother hates when I share my every move with the Facebook world. I am going to show her this article and hopefully she will recant her hatred for my status updates. I'm glad the courts allowed Facebook to be an alibi for Bradford. And I'm sure he is grateful for the medium of the internet.
Let me know what you think.
~Lexi
This article is important for many a couple of reasons. One it is a warning to parents who are afraid when their Facebookers update their status every minute they change their locations. Parents should now be happy, because Facebook could keep prove their child's innocence. Secondly, it shows how the medium of technology moves faster than the laws. This is the first case in which a social networking page, such as Facebook, was allowed as an alibi, in previous cases it was used as "as prosecutorial evidence".
I really liked this article. I am a frequent Facebook user and an excessive status updater. My mother hates when I share my every move with the Facebook world. I am going to show her this article and hopefully she will recant her hatred for my status updates. I'm glad the courts allowed Facebook to be an alibi for Bradford. And I'm sure he is grateful for the medium of the internet.
Let me know what you think.
~Lexi
Friday, February 26, 2010
Pilots, Advertising, and Money
The television world is approaching their pilot season. Right now, networks are spending enormous amounts of money to produce the “next big series.” Among the five major broadcasting networks, nearly 80 pilots are waiting to be picked up. All of which are hoping to have time on the air later this year. These pilots range from dramas to comedies. This “pilot season” is described as “optimistic” says 20th Century Fox Television chairman Gary Newman. The one-line descriptions of many of these pilots cause some to wonder how and why some of these series ideas have made it to the pilot stage. Networks are hoping that they are investing into pilots that are the “next big thing” on television.
As I read this article the enormous amount of money that these networks are spending on these pilots stood out to me. Why do major broadcasting networks spend so much money on producing numerous pilots, most of which are not going to make it on television? Besides the obvious reason of discovering “the next big thing” on television, who really is making a profit off of these shows? Is it the networks or the advertisers? These networks are using logic of safety when producing these pilots. Most of the pilot one-liners, describe many of these shows as highly comical or highly dramatic; all of which are popular by public interest. And many advertisers are waiting to use product placement in these possible new shows to promote their products, even during commercial breaks.
The networks and advertisers work together to benefit one another. One would not exist without the other. I think as a viewer of television it is important to be informed of what happens behind the scenes of the media. When watching the newest popular reality show, understand how advertisers work to sell their products and how networks work to show the programs that attract a huge audience.
Any thoughts?
-Dominique
Shen, Maxine. "TV Enters Its Silly Season." New York Post [New York] 25 Feb. 2010: 81. Print.
As I read this article the enormous amount of money that these networks are spending on these pilots stood out to me. Why do major broadcasting networks spend so much money on producing numerous pilots, most of which are not going to make it on television? Besides the obvious reason of discovering “the next big thing” on television, who really is making a profit off of these shows? Is it the networks or the advertisers? These networks are using logic of safety when producing these pilots. Most of the pilot one-liners, describe many of these shows as highly comical or highly dramatic; all of which are popular by public interest. And many advertisers are waiting to use product placement in these possible new shows to promote their products, even during commercial breaks.
The networks and advertisers work together to benefit one another. One would not exist without the other. I think as a viewer of television it is important to be informed of what happens behind the scenes of the media. When watching the newest popular reality show, understand how advertisers work to sell their products and how networks work to show the programs that attract a huge audience.
Any thoughts?
-Dominique
Shen, Maxine. "TV Enters Its Silly Season." New York Post [New York] 25 Feb. 2010: 81. Print.
Monday, February 22, 2010
gender issues in...surfing?
Let's be honest- when we hear surfing, some of us (most of us) think of a male. In movies, magazines, on TV, everything media related connection usually shows a male surfing. And though I'm no expert when it comes to surfing, I can understand why the following article is disturbing.
In this article, the victories of a surfer is reported. A third year surfer won a Third World Championship. In the world of surfing, this is a HUGE accomplishment and something definitely to be acknowledged. As the article states, this is a "...remarkable feat of dominance for any athlete is any sport, an accomplishment that no other surfer has ever managed before." On top of this, this surfer was the first person to win a world championship in a "rookie year on tour", which took place in 2007. She won this championship three times in the first three years on tour. Needless to say, this is one fantastic surfer.
And one unknown surfer, because there was little to no media coverage on this. This surfer is named Stephanie Gilmore and according to this article, the media coverage would be going crazy over this feat, if it were accomplished by a male. Two to three million people are surfers and 25% of that statistic is women. Interestingly, this article touches on the fact that when women surf, it is considered a "lifestyle", rather than a sport, which is what it is considered when males do it. On top of that, men surfing is considered competitive while women surfing is not considered nearly as seriously. As per usual with marketing and advertisements, surfing women are shown as "bikini-clad, fun loving women, and it doesn't seem to matter if they surf or not."
Thankfully, there are steps being made in the right direction. Film makers are trying to show their support by making women surfer movies. Surfers, like Gilmore, are also working with this process and trying to get more respect. Respect they deserve.
Personally, I am not surprised by this article. All men sports in general are considered competitive and a sport, while women seem to be doing it for the enjoyment of the audience, to look pretty and sexy, and for the sport itself to not be considered serious. It's annoying and frustrating. Though I'm not sure if it's a good idea, maybe mixing females and males into the same sport would have more of an effect. What if we added a few females into the Phillies? How many fans would be lost? And why does it have to be this way? As a woman, I'm very frustrated by this article because even after all the process we have made, the long journey to absolute equality is shown in this article.
We all need to care because if we are an equal nation like we claim to be, this cannot happen. We've taken such big steps forward and come so far, we should not be degressing back to when women couldn't even vote. This effects all women because if we accomplish something amazing or outstanding, we deserve equal media coverage and praise for it.
What are your thoughts on this? A male's point of view would be interesting. Check out the article.
Audra
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/22/unprecedented-feat-goes-unnoticed-by-many/
In this article, the victories of a surfer is reported. A third year surfer won a Third World Championship. In the world of surfing, this is a HUGE accomplishment and something definitely to be acknowledged. As the article states, this is a "...remarkable feat of dominance for any athlete is any sport, an accomplishment that no other surfer has ever managed before." On top of this, this surfer was the first person to win a world championship in a "rookie year on tour", which took place in 2007. She won this championship three times in the first three years on tour. Needless to say, this is one fantastic surfer.
And one unknown surfer, because there was little to no media coverage on this. This surfer is named Stephanie Gilmore and according to this article, the media coverage would be going crazy over this feat, if it were accomplished by a male. Two to three million people are surfers and 25% of that statistic is women. Interestingly, this article touches on the fact that when women surf, it is considered a "lifestyle", rather than a sport, which is what it is considered when males do it. On top of that, men surfing is considered competitive while women surfing is not considered nearly as seriously. As per usual with marketing and advertisements, surfing women are shown as "bikini-clad, fun loving women, and it doesn't seem to matter if they surf or not."
Thankfully, there are steps being made in the right direction. Film makers are trying to show their support by making women surfer movies. Surfers, like Gilmore, are also working with this process and trying to get more respect. Respect they deserve.
Personally, I am not surprised by this article. All men sports in general are considered competitive and a sport, while women seem to be doing it for the enjoyment of the audience, to look pretty and sexy, and for the sport itself to not be considered serious. It's annoying and frustrating. Though I'm not sure if it's a good idea, maybe mixing females and males into the same sport would have more of an effect. What if we added a few females into the Phillies? How many fans would be lost? And why does it have to be this way? As a woman, I'm very frustrated by this article because even after all the process we have made, the long journey to absolute equality is shown in this article.
We all need to care because if we are an equal nation like we claim to be, this cannot happen. We've taken such big steps forward and come so far, we should not be degressing back to when women couldn't even vote. This effects all women because if we accomplish something amazing or outstanding, we deserve equal media coverage and praise for it.
What are your thoughts on this? A male's point of view would be interesting. Check out the article.
Audra
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/feb/22/unprecedented-feat-goes-unnoticed-by-many/
Friday, February 19, 2010
Racism Seeps it's Way in to Transformers.....
I was recently looking over an article called Jar Jar again? 2 Transformers Raise Race Issues posted by MSNBC. The article discussed the recently released movie Transformers 2 and two minor characters that were causing major uproars. A lot of critics had a problem with two robots in the movie named Skids and Mudflap. In the movie, these two bots were given what might be referred to as a stereotypical "black" demeanor. The characters were constantly fighting, arguing and speaking with broken English. At one point during the movie, one of the bots admitted that he couldn't read. Critics have made cross references of these two characters to the character Jar Jar Binks from Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace which I am unable to critique as a fair comparison being that I have never seen Star Wars. When certain critics evaluated the attitudes of the characters, the stated how Hollywood has a tendency to get laughs at the expense of the African-American community. One critic mentioned how if the movie was filmed with real black actors as opposed to animated characters, one would have to admit that it was racist. However because they are disguised in robots, that makes it OK.
When the Director Michael Bay was confronted about the issue, he insisted that the bots were implemented for good clean fun. Bay went on to say that the characters added "personality" but wasn't sure if he would refer to it as "stereotypes." Regardless of the fact that when I heard Michael Bay's remarks, I instantly regarded them as implausible, I was further reminded of a class discussion I was involved in not too long ago. The professor said how regardless of the intentions of the producers (be it profit motivated or even a conspiracy) the product they produce have very real, lasting effects. For example, a lot of media portray black people as violent, uneducated people. Because this is so often the portrayal of normal behavior of black people, normalization has caused a lot of people within the black community to adopt these specific behaviors.
As a black man, I was personally offended by the two robot characters in the movie. I felt that they were unnecessary and took away from a movie that I would have otherwise enjoyed. I find it hard to believe that the behaviors of the robots throughout the entire film followed by a remark about not being able to read could be an accident (especially as a major film producer). I am not going to make any accusations about what I believe Michael Bay's intentions were, but I do think it is important to realize that actions such as these have very real and very negative effects on people. For this to be implemented in a film for young people whose minds and perceptions are still being molded and developed is unacceptable. Please feel free to share your thoughts.
When the Director Michael Bay was confronted about the issue, he insisted that the bots were implemented for good clean fun. Bay went on to say that the characters added "personality" but wasn't sure if he would refer to it as "stereotypes." Regardless of the fact that when I heard Michael Bay's remarks, I instantly regarded them as implausible, I was further reminded of a class discussion I was involved in not too long ago. The professor said how regardless of the intentions of the producers (be it profit motivated or even a conspiracy) the product they produce have very real, lasting effects. For example, a lot of media portray black people as violent, uneducated people. Because this is so often the portrayal of normal behavior of black people, normalization has caused a lot of people within the black community to adopt these specific behaviors.
As a black man, I was personally offended by the two robot characters in the movie. I felt that they were unnecessary and took away from a movie that I would have otherwise enjoyed. I find it hard to believe that the behaviors of the robots throughout the entire film followed by a remark about not being able to read could be an accident (especially as a major film producer). I am not going to make any accusations about what I believe Michael Bay's intentions were, but I do think it is important to realize that actions such as these have very real and very negative effects on people. For this to be implemented in a film for young people whose minds and perceptions are still being molded and developed is unacceptable. Please feel free to share your thoughts.
Could it be...A president we actually like
According to a study done by the director of The Center for Media and Public Affairs, President Barack Obama has gotten the most positive feedback during most presidential campaigns. When compared to former presidents like George Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton, President Obama has had the most positive stories and articles written about him. Some people think that this is because he was so different from what most people were used to when it came to the President of the United States. It is not even the fact that Obama had this abundant amount of positive feedback back because he didn’t. The negative feedback still outweighed the positive. According to The Washington Times, the ratio for Obama’s coverage was 49 percent positive and 51 percent negative. What makes this stand out is when it is compared to a former president like George Bush who had 23 percent positive or Bill Clinton who had 28 percent positive feedback. Now that his campaign is over and Obama is president, the writers and journalist have put the heat on him just like they do with all the rest of the people who have ever occupied that position.
This stands out because presidents get so much criticism throw at them all the time. For a President to get that much positive press, it really says something about his campaign. I agree with the article, I think the feedback he got had a lot to do with who he was and how he was so different from the norm. By him begin the first African-American president; people were drawn to his campaign. Even if they did not agree with what he stood for, or they did not agree with his plans for the country, people still wanted to know about his story.
Why did Obama’s campaign receive more positive feedback than former campaigns of George Bush, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton? I don’t think we will ever really know for sure. Will the amount of positivity he received affect the amount of pressure that will be put on him? My guess will be yes. Because people think so highly of him, they will most likely watch every move he makes to see if he lives up to be the president that a lot of people are hoping him to be.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/26/obamas-honeymoon-with-media-is-history/?feat=home_top5_commented
What your answers to the above questions?...Think about it
-Paige
This stands out because presidents get so much criticism throw at them all the time. For a President to get that much positive press, it really says something about his campaign. I agree with the article, I think the feedback he got had a lot to do with who he was and how he was so different from the norm. By him begin the first African-American president; people were drawn to his campaign. Even if they did not agree with what he stood for, or they did not agree with his plans for the country, people still wanted to know about his story.
Why did Obama’s campaign receive more positive feedback than former campaigns of George Bush, Ronald Regan, and Bill Clinton? I don’t think we will ever really know for sure. Will the amount of positivity he received affect the amount of pressure that will be put on him? My guess will be yes. Because people think so highly of him, they will most likely watch every move he makes to see if he lives up to be the president that a lot of people are hoping him to be.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/26/obamas-honeymoon-with-media-is-history/?feat=home_top5_commented
What your answers to the above questions?...Think about it
-Paige
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
racism in abortion?
Abortion is a sensitive subject as it is. Add racism to it and things get pretty messy. Planned Parenthood, a safe haven for those who are pregnant and help for various other sex related issues, are located in tons of different locations throughout the world. In Atlanta, Georgia, however, problems are arising. The founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger is being accused of racism. Billboards featuring the statement "Black Children are an Endangered Species" and instructions to go to toomanyaborted.com are popping up. According to Ryan Bomberger, who is the founder of Radiance Foundation (which sponsors the ads) says, "Women are being lied to...by Planned Parenthood. And that's what toomanyaborted.com is about. It's about exposing these things; using the facts; using Margaret Sanger's own words." Apparently, this website talks about how Sanger founded the "Negro Project" which was supposed to "reduce the number of African American births." This website also connects Sanger to the "eugenics movement, which advocated the sterilization of the unfit and was closed related to racist Nazi ideology." Dr. La Verne Tolbert, who used to be a board member to Planned Parenthood, points out that most Planned Parenthoods (94%) are in urban areas where blacks live. She also has personal experience with this- in her urban neighborhood, where mostly blacks reside, there are three abortion clinics "strategically located all in the same area." Leola Reis, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, says, "The language in the billboard is using messages of fear and shame to target women of color." Although African Americans make up 1/3 of Georgia's population, in 2006 blacks were accounted for the majority of abortions. An astonishing 18,901 abortions were performed in 2008 alone. Thankfully, a Georgia representative, Barry Loudermilk, developed the Prenatal NonDiscrimination Act. According to Loudermilk, "This legislation would make it illegal to conduct selective human abortions based on the sex, race or color of a child. It applies the same standards of non-discrimination that is current law regarding employment, education, government and housing, to the practice of human abortion. It also gives the mother the right to seek civil damages against any abortion doctor or clinic who conducts an illegal abortion in the state of Georgia.”
Not only is this article terrifying, but it is truly degrading and disgusting. On the webpage is a video from the Radiance Foundation. This video starts off with a statement given by Sanger-"There is no doubt the procreation of [African Americans] should be stopped." How can someone think this way? As previously stated, it truly is like the Nazi situation. The ideology of having a person white nation- blonde hair, blue eyes. It's horrific. The video also points out that black women abort at three times the rate of white women. Sanger seems to have a birth control plan of her own- killing black babies. While this article did not state it, she is obviously white. And this woman is the founder of Planned Parenthood! Planned Parenthood is supposed to be a safe haven for women to go to when they need help. They shouldn't have to worry about getting an unfair abortion because some psycho woman wants to have an all-white world. How can such a racism person be in charge of something so huge and important to our civilization? The even more shocking, and sad, statistic is that almost 40% of African American pregnancies end in abortion. How did we let our nation get to this point?
This effects each and every one of us. If these kinds of people are playing God and deciding who gets to live (whites) and who dies (blacks) we will eventually end up where we once were- blacks inequal, if we don't kill them all off. How can a human race become endangered? We do not want to get to that point because someday, our mistakes may be in history books.
What do you think? Anyone else equally upset by this article?
Check it out
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10021502.html
Audra
Not only is this article terrifying, but it is truly degrading and disgusting. On the webpage is a video from the Radiance Foundation. This video starts off with a statement given by Sanger-"There is no doubt the procreation of [African Americans] should be stopped." How can someone think this way? As previously stated, it truly is like the Nazi situation. The ideology of having a person white nation- blonde hair, blue eyes. It's horrific. The video also points out that black women abort at three times the rate of white women. Sanger seems to have a birth control plan of her own- killing black babies. While this article did not state it, she is obviously white. And this woman is the founder of Planned Parenthood! Planned Parenthood is supposed to be a safe haven for women to go to when they need help. They shouldn't have to worry about getting an unfair abortion because some psycho woman wants to have an all-white world. How can such a racism person be in charge of something so huge and important to our civilization? The even more shocking, and sad, statistic is that almost 40% of African American pregnancies end in abortion. How did we let our nation get to this point?
This effects each and every one of us. If these kinds of people are playing God and deciding who gets to live (whites) and who dies (blacks) we will eventually end up where we once were- blacks inequal, if we don't kill them all off. How can a human race become endangered? We do not want to get to that point because someday, our mistakes may be in history books.
What do you think? Anyone else equally upset by this article?
Check it out
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/feb/10021502.html
Audra
Friday, February 12, 2010
"Kick a Ginger Day,"
CNN posted an article, "Police: Facebook site may have led to beating of 12-year-old", that says that it is very possible that a Facebook page titled "Kick a Ginger Day" may have led to the beating of a 12 year old boy. The pages is referring to all red-headed people. CNN states "The redheaded boy was beaten up by a group of seventh and eighth graders at A.E. Wright Middle School in Calabasas in two separate incidents." It has been said that the group was believed to be formed from a "South Park" episode. The boy was not seiously hurt, and no charges have been made as of yet.
So why is this important? Facebook is one of the largest networking site in the world. I am a member of Facebook, and see many groups that are racists, sexiest, etc. Many times people confuse media representations with the real world. In the media, it is okay to "kick a Ginger" however, that in the real world is an act of racism. What made these students think that it was okay to harm another student? How did they come to the conclusion to follow Facebook?
So what do I think? I think that the medium of internet networking sites are out of control. There are countless stories about someone being hurt, physically, mentally, or emotionally, because of Internet harassment. I would like these sites to become more strict with their no-harassment policies and or require membership to such sites for those who are 18 years and older. So what do you think? I would love to hear it.
~Lexi
oh, here's the article, just in case you want to check it out: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/22/california.redhead.attack.facebook/index.html#cnnSTCText
So why is this important? Facebook is one of the largest networking site in the world. I am a member of Facebook, and see many groups that are racists, sexiest, etc. Many times people confuse media representations with the real world. In the media, it is okay to "kick a Ginger" however, that in the real world is an act of racism. What made these students think that it was okay to harm another student? How did they come to the conclusion to follow Facebook?
So what do I think? I think that the medium of internet networking sites are out of control. There are countless stories about someone being hurt, physically, mentally, or emotionally, because of Internet harassment. I would like these sites to become more strict with their no-harassment policies and or require membership to such sites for those who are 18 years and older. So what do you think? I would love to hear it.
~Lexi
oh, here's the article, just in case you want to check it out: http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/22/california.redhead.attack.facebook/index.html#cnnSTCText
Thursday, February 11, 2010
halloween- setting up the wrong image?
Though I don't know why I found an article about Halloween costumes, it was mixed in with gender articles.
In this article, the author talks about the "all the rage" boy Halloween costumes. Every boy, for Halloween, wants to be the jacked up, six packed, "Paul Bunyan on steriods." Anything other than these costumes, the manly save-the-day-and-rescue-the-princess costume, is considered baby-ish, as one boy proclaims. According to the assistant manager of the Halloween store in King of Prussia mall, Transformer costumes, G.I.Joe, and superheroes are the top selling products. And as for the girls? Well, they have the image of body and sexuality pressed on them, starting at age four, the article states. Sexy pirate costumes and "sultry" vampire costumes. This stays with them each Halloween, getting sexier and sexier each year.
According to this article, it's just as damaging for the boys as it is for the girls. And why do these kids feel the need, even at age four, to buy these costumes? Because of "media and marketing messages", says experts who watch how the body image in promoted in pop culture. These kids are growing up, seeing how the typical "in" male or female is dressed, and want to be that person. Halloween is the one day where you can dress as someone else. These kids are dressing who they want to be when they grow up.
The article also adds an interesting point of view. Not only are these masculine boy costumes, filled with muscles and "beefyness", around on Halloween but with each media representation comes more. Television, magazines, etc, everything has these images. Kids see their favorite superhero, who resembles their favorite singer, and they think this is how they should look. According to Lyn Mikel Brown, a professor at Colby College and author, "Halloween is about the stark commericialization of gender." She addds that Halloween is all about "the idealized male body."
According to critics, we need to look at the big picture. Besides Halloween just being a few hours one day a year, bigger problems "arise[s] from the accumulation of images that promote a buff image of boys as ideal." The article points out the amount of Abercrombie and Fitch "shirtless hunks" and ripped guy on Axe commericals. Kids see this and what else can they think besides this is what they are supposed to look like? This is what society defines as "hot" and "in".
The next part of the article disgusts me. According to a study in 2006 with 261 third, fourth, and fifth (!) graders, 49% of the boys weren't happy with how they looked and 50% of the girls weren't happy with how they looked. As Jussel, the executive director of Shaping Youth (non profit organization that looks at the impact of marketing on children), perfectly puts it- "Media is defining kids before they define themselves."
I am literally disgusted by this article. I can't remember growing up and expecting to look a certain way based off of media images. However, things are definitely different nowadays. Television is a big part of kids lives, whether we want to admit that or not. Kids are getting into designer names (i.e., Abercrombie & Fitch and Axe) at younger and younger ages. They think that these images ( the muscley man, the six pack, the all out masculine no feelings guy) are what are expected of them.
Now what if these kids, someday our kids, decide that they need to be these people? Not want to be these people but need to be. We could go back to times when women were considered inferior, because the males they are portraying in the media are dominate and superior. The line between gender could be drawn even heavier if kids continue with this idea that they need to be how models and people on TV are.
Audra
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/67472282.html
In this article, the author talks about the "all the rage" boy Halloween costumes. Every boy, for Halloween, wants to be the jacked up, six packed, "Paul Bunyan on steriods." Anything other than these costumes, the manly save-the-day-and-rescue-the-princess costume, is considered baby-ish, as one boy proclaims. According to the assistant manager of the Halloween store in King of Prussia mall, Transformer costumes, G.I.Joe, and superheroes are the top selling products. And as for the girls? Well, they have the image of body and sexuality pressed on them, starting at age four, the article states. Sexy pirate costumes and "sultry" vampire costumes. This stays with them each Halloween, getting sexier and sexier each year.
According to this article, it's just as damaging for the boys as it is for the girls. And why do these kids feel the need, even at age four, to buy these costumes? Because of "media and marketing messages", says experts who watch how the body image in promoted in pop culture. These kids are growing up, seeing how the typical "in" male or female is dressed, and want to be that person. Halloween is the one day where you can dress as someone else. These kids are dressing who they want to be when they grow up.
The article also adds an interesting point of view. Not only are these masculine boy costumes, filled with muscles and "beefyness", around on Halloween but with each media representation comes more. Television, magazines, etc, everything has these images. Kids see their favorite superhero, who resembles their favorite singer, and they think this is how they should look. According to Lyn Mikel Brown, a professor at Colby College and author, "Halloween is about the stark commericialization of gender." She addds that Halloween is all about "the idealized male body."
According to critics, we need to look at the big picture. Besides Halloween just being a few hours one day a year, bigger problems "arise[s] from the accumulation of images that promote a buff image of boys as ideal." The article points out the amount of Abercrombie and Fitch "shirtless hunks" and ripped guy on Axe commericals. Kids see this and what else can they think besides this is what they are supposed to look like? This is what society defines as "hot" and "in".
The next part of the article disgusts me. According to a study in 2006 with 261 third, fourth, and fifth (!) graders, 49% of the boys weren't happy with how they looked and 50% of the girls weren't happy with how they looked. As Jussel, the executive director of Shaping Youth (non profit organization that looks at the impact of marketing on children), perfectly puts it- "Media is defining kids before they define themselves."
I am literally disgusted by this article. I can't remember growing up and expecting to look a certain way based off of media images. However, things are definitely different nowadays. Television is a big part of kids lives, whether we want to admit that or not. Kids are getting into designer names (i.e., Abercrombie & Fitch and Axe) at younger and younger ages. They think that these images ( the muscley man, the six pack, the all out masculine no feelings guy) are what are expected of them.
Now what if these kids, someday our kids, decide that they need to be these people? Not want to be these people but need to be. We could go back to times when women were considered inferior, because the males they are portraying in the media are dominate and superior. The line between gender could be drawn even heavier if kids continue with this idea that they need to be how models and people on TV are.
Audra
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/homepage/67472282.html
Is It Racism or a Poor Choice of Words?
Last month, Senator Harry Reid made a comment about stating that President Barack Obama could be successful because of his "light-skinned" appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." After receiving negative feedback and criticism because of this remark, Reid made a public apology,” I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words...I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments." He also apologized to various black white house officials, and even President Obama himself. The president accepted Reid's apology and later stated, "I accepted Harry's apology without question because I've known him for years, I've seen the passionate leadership he's shown on issues of social justice and I know what's in his heart. As far as I am concerned, the book is closed."
Was the senator's remarks racist or simply a bad choice of words? Years ago, it was very evident when someone was racist. This traditional form of racism was portrayed throughout various outlets of the media. Now, a more modern take on racism makes it difficult to differentiate between who is racist and who is not. Today, racism is more settle and more hidden. Whereas, years ago it was more blunt and obvious. However sometimes people do simply use a poor choice of words. Only Senator Reid knows his intensions.
It's important just to keep an eye on racism while coming to the realization that it does still exist, even if it is not as obvious as years ago. Personally, I think it is sad that some people can not accept the fact that Obama is president. The lightness of his skin or even dialect should not be the only factors that define his presidency.
Any thoughts?
-Dominique
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/09/obama.reid/index.html
Was the senator's remarks racist or simply a bad choice of words? Years ago, it was very evident when someone was racist. This traditional form of racism was portrayed throughout various outlets of the media. Now, a more modern take on racism makes it difficult to differentiate between who is racist and who is not. Today, racism is more settle and more hidden. Whereas, years ago it was more blunt and obvious. However sometimes people do simply use a poor choice of words. Only Senator Reid knows his intensions.
It's important just to keep an eye on racism while coming to the realization that it does still exist, even if it is not as obvious as years ago. Personally, I think it is sad that some people can not accept the fact that Obama is president. The lightness of his skin or even dialect should not be the only factors that define his presidency.
Any thoughts?
-Dominique
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/01/09/obama.reid/index.html
Monday, February 8, 2010
In your FACE! I TOLD you I could text and drive!!! :-p
Ok, I admit: I’m what you would call your stereotypical American texting junkie. With that being said, I was nothing less that elated when I came across this article called Study: Cell Phone Bans don’t stop car crashes posted by MSNBC. The article basically talked about a study done by the Highway Loss Data institute to find out what time of impact these safe yet highly inconvenient cell phone laws are really having! Being a native Marylander and a textually active driver, I am directly impacted by the cell phone laws that prohibit texting while operating a motor vehicle. The research concluded that banning cell phone usage while driving has not lowered the amount of car accidents that occur. Researchers compared insurance claims before and after cell phone laws were implemented into major states such as Cali, New York and Washington D.C. and found that not only has it failed to lower the amount of accidents within the state, but it hasn’t even shown a pattern shift from states without any cell phone laws at all.
If banning cell phone usage doesn’t necessarily lower the amount of car accidents that occur, it kind of leads one to wonder why states with these laws push the issue so hard.. Increasingly more and more states are adopting the idea of banning cell phone usage while driving in efforts to make the roads safer. However, if cell phones clearly are not the root of the problem, why haven’t we abandoned this notion yet? One theory (that I’m not necessarily saying I agree with……necessarily) might argue the ideology of consumerism as discussed in Media/ Society. This concept basically suggests (with much pretty words of course) that capitalistic Americans are a bunch of gullible guinea pigs and if you can get them to think one thing, you can get them to buy anything! If media advertisers can convince someone that they are not safe in their home regardless of the neighborhood, then they can in turn convince people that overpriced, rarely if ever used home security systems are absolutely necessary. Similarly, if America can be convinced that hands-on cell phone driving is detrimental to the well being of them and other drivers around them, it is a financial opportunity for Bluetooth, hands-free headset companies and even state police writing tickets to make a profit.
Now, although the study showed that the numbers (on a large scale) have not decreased the amount of times people run into each other on the road, it would be foolish of me to argue that there has never been an instance where a terrible driver who regularly multitask while driving and simultaneously pollutes the safe streets of America with their carelessness has inadvertently avoided a potential accident by being forced to leave his/her blackberry in their pocket. It would also be foolish of me to argue that safe and experienced drivers (such as myself) are not fully capable of responding to a text message while still being alert and aware of their surroundings. Though certain things are obviously safe precautions, media do have their ways of emphasizing certain factors in order to develop mindsets in people that will eventually lead to a profit. Perhaps the best solution and definitely the best solution I can offer at the time would be to of course obey the laws of the road-but beyond that, take the time to evaluate everything for yourself and not always accept the first explanation presented. Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? I’m listening!
If banning cell phone usage doesn’t necessarily lower the amount of car accidents that occur, it kind of leads one to wonder why states with these laws push the issue so hard.. Increasingly more and more states are adopting the idea of banning cell phone usage while driving in efforts to make the roads safer. However, if cell phones clearly are not the root of the problem, why haven’t we abandoned this notion yet? One theory (that I’m not necessarily saying I agree with……necessarily) might argue the ideology of consumerism as discussed in Media/ Society. This concept basically suggests (with much pretty words of course) that capitalistic Americans are a bunch of gullible guinea pigs and if you can get them to think one thing, you can get them to buy anything! If media advertisers can convince someone that they are not safe in their home regardless of the neighborhood, then they can in turn convince people that overpriced, rarely if ever used home security systems are absolutely necessary. Similarly, if America can be convinced that hands-on cell phone driving is detrimental to the well being of them and other drivers around them, it is a financial opportunity for Bluetooth, hands-free headset companies and even state police writing tickets to make a profit.
Now, although the study showed that the numbers (on a large scale) have not decreased the amount of times people run into each other on the road, it would be foolish of me to argue that there has never been an instance where a terrible driver who regularly multitask while driving and simultaneously pollutes the safe streets of America with their carelessness has inadvertently avoided a potential accident by being forced to leave his/her blackberry in their pocket. It would also be foolish of me to argue that safe and experienced drivers (such as myself) are not fully capable of responding to a text message while still being alert and aware of their surroundings. Though certain things are obviously safe precautions, media do have their ways of emphasizing certain factors in order to develop mindsets in people that will eventually lead to a profit. Perhaps the best solution and definitely the best solution I can offer at the time would be to of course obey the laws of the road-but beyond that, take the time to evaluate everything for yourself and not always accept the first explanation presented. Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? I’m listening!
Friday, February 5, 2010
"What Happend to All the Things I like to Eat?"
Top notch doctors in Australia are attempting to have junk food advertisements banned from children’s viewing on television. They don’t want the ads of unhealthy foods to be shown during the times that children watch TV. A research study done by Melbourne’s Deakin University shows that if this ban were to take place, a 1.4 percent reduction of obese Australian children would occur. The research also shows that the government would save 300 million dollars that would have been put out for obesity healthcare. The state and national government are in agreement with this ban and want to begin a series of activities that will influence the reduction of obesity. An Australian doctor, by the name of Dr. Pesce states that if the unhealthy habits continue in Australia, half of the children will be obese over the next 20 years. A professor of Population Health from Deakin University believes that this ban of advertising will be the most effective.
This article is basically saying that banning advertisements of unhealthy food to children will in result lead to a reduction of obesity. They think that if the child can’t see it or does not know it exists, they will not want it. I find it ironic that they only feel the need to ban this advertisement during popular viewing times for children. Australian doctors ultimately are worried about the well being of the child and are looking for any possible ways to stop this obesity epidemic that is taking place.
What children see on television does influence their thinking and their personal choice of the things they want. If the child sees an advertisement of a particular snack and in the commercial all the kids are laughing and having fun, they receive a message that if they want to laugh and have fun, they need to be eating that particular snack. The only part of this plan that I find a flaw in is the fact that if the parents of the children are the ones primarily going out and purchasing these snacks, why are they targeting the children? Regardless of the fact that the child sees these snacks being advertised on TV, they are not the ones going to the grocery store and buying them. It is the parents’ responsibility to purchase the things that will ultimately be beneficial to their child’s health.
What do you think?
-Paige
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
vanity fair- is it fair?
The March issue of Vanity Fair (which I am slightly jealous I do not yet have it in my possession) is being called/accused of racism. Why? Because the front cover features nine very popular, very white females. As the article states, Vanity Fair itself lacks any kind of ethinic mix- anyone other than a white female is rarely featured in the magazine. However, there are many indirect yet-not-so-subtle hints that the magazine believes there are not enough female African American actresses. Though it is not as big of an issue as race, of course the cover only features the most attractive, skinny actresses. If you follow the link to USA Today, you'll find that ever since they put up the possibility of the racist magazine, tons and tons of people have blogged, facebooked, twittered, every kind of technological way possible, about the very likely possibility. However, the other side of the story is that Vanity Fair is only, "...choosing the demographic because those are the people who read their magazine." USA Today wonders where the famous woman, who goes unnamed, who just won the award from Precious is? If Vanity Fair is doing the hottest stars of now, shouldn't this infamous woman be on the cover with the rest?
I have to say, like many other people, I honestly hadn't even noticed the lack of diversity in all magazines, not just Vanity Fair. As a twenty one year old girl, I consume magazines like food- and have not had the issue of race when it comes to magazines in my mind until now. But, now that I'm thinking about it, it's true. Cosmo, Vanity Fair, Seventeen...where are the African American women? Yes, African Americans have their own magazines just for them, such as Ebony, but does that mean they need to be completed excluded from what has been dubbed "white" magazines? Do we think, as a society, that African Americans are not reading these magazines? Of course they are-Cosomo is one of the top magazines in the country. I think Vanity Fair is simply going with what mainstream is- white, skinny, attractive, nothing-goes-wrong-in-my-life-because-I-live-in-a-sitcom girl. There could be a number of reasons for this, most of which are named in Media Society. In chapter six, Croteau and Hoynes speak about television shows and why they are the way they are- making fun of certain races, only focusing on whites, etc. I believe this is similiar to what is going on here. As they state, "[researches] study media content to assess the significance of that content." There are more than five ways that researches do the assessing. One that I think is relevent to this is content as reflection as producers. The producers of the televisions show reflect their views, beliefs, and even family lives for "story inspiration". For the editor of Vanity Fair magazine, he/she is most likely white, because statistics show few African Americans hold authortive positions. The editor is probably reflecting what he/she knows and is comfortable with- white individuals. Another possible content is content as reflection of society in general. We, as a society, have been struggle with race for entirely too long. The magazine may follow what this content considers mainstream norms, social values, and just the interests of the society all together-which, in the case of Vanity Fair, are white people. There is also the possibility of content as an influence on audiences. If the editor knows his magazine is mostly brought by white women, what would the effect of having an African Americaon on the cover have on his sales and magazine reputation?
This is shocking, surprising, and straight up weird to think about. This affects us as a society because pretty much everyone (I'm assuming here) reads a magazine at one point in their life. What if this became such a big deal that there were strictly "white" magazines and "black" magazines? How awkward would it be if a white girl went up to her black friend and tried talking to her about an article in a "white" magazine and the black girl had no idea what she was talking about? It would be completely unfair. There is such a thick line drawn between white and black- we do not need it in our magazines as well. Famous black actresses should be praised just as much as the white actresses.
Maybe I don't want that Vanity Fair magazine after all.
-audra
http://www.examiner.com/x-27061-LA-Movie-Examiner~y2010m2d3-Vanity-Fairs-Racist-March-Hollywood-Magazine-Cover-Too-White-for-2010-Photo
I have to say, like many other people, I honestly hadn't even noticed the lack of diversity in all magazines, not just Vanity Fair. As a twenty one year old girl, I consume magazines like food- and have not had the issue of race when it comes to magazines in my mind until now. But, now that I'm thinking about it, it's true. Cosmo, Vanity Fair, Seventeen...where are the African American women? Yes, African Americans have their own magazines just for them, such as Ebony, but does that mean they need to be completed excluded from what has been dubbed "white" magazines? Do we think, as a society, that African Americans are not reading these magazines? Of course they are-Cosomo is one of the top magazines in the country. I think Vanity Fair is simply going with what mainstream is- white, skinny, attractive, nothing-goes-wrong-in-my-life-because-I-live-in-a-sitcom girl. There could be a number of reasons for this, most of which are named in Media Society. In chapter six, Croteau and Hoynes speak about television shows and why they are the way they are- making fun of certain races, only focusing on whites, etc. I believe this is similiar to what is going on here. As they state, "[researches] study media content to assess the significance of that content." There are more than five ways that researches do the assessing. One that I think is relevent to this is content as reflection as producers. The producers of the televisions show reflect their views, beliefs, and even family lives for "story inspiration". For the editor of Vanity Fair magazine, he/she is most likely white, because statistics show few African Americans hold authortive positions. The editor is probably reflecting what he/she knows and is comfortable with- white individuals. Another possible content is content as reflection of society in general. We, as a society, have been struggle with race for entirely too long. The magazine may follow what this content considers mainstream norms, social values, and just the interests of the society all together-which, in the case of Vanity Fair, are white people. There is also the possibility of content as an influence on audiences. If the editor knows his magazine is mostly brought by white women, what would the effect of having an African Americaon on the cover have on his sales and magazine reputation?
This is shocking, surprising, and straight up weird to think about. This affects us as a society because pretty much everyone (I'm assuming here) reads a magazine at one point in their life. What if this became such a big deal that there were strictly "white" magazines and "black" magazines? How awkward would it be if a white girl went up to her black friend and tried talking to her about an article in a "white" magazine and the black girl had no idea what she was talking about? It would be completely unfair. There is such a thick line drawn between white and black- we do not need it in our magazines as well. Famous black actresses should be praised just as much as the white actresses.
Maybe I don't want that Vanity Fair magazine after all.
-audra
http://www.examiner.com/x-27061-LA-Movie-Examiner~y2010m2d3-Vanity-Fairs-Racist-March-Hollywood-Magazine-Cover-Too-White-for-2010-Photo
Thursday, January 28, 2010
iPad...or iTampon?
Who would have ever guessed that when Apple announced the name of its new tablet computer, the iPad, it would make many people, women in particular, cringe? With the release of the name this past week, many women begin to question why Apple has decided to name their new device after a feminine hygiene product. A CNBC anchor has agreed that the name reminded her of feminine products and she thinks it was a “terrible” name to choose. This topic has also been the talk on Twitter among many, resulting in the creation of terms such as “iTampon” and phrases stating that that Apple has an app for everything including a women’s menstrual cycle. While many women seem irritated by the name, men think the opposite. Many men have said that they did not make the same connection as women. With further investigation into the name’s origin, it was found that no women hold top executive positions at Apple. But it has been very evident that no matter male or female, one has to acknowledge that the “iPad” name has been effective and a great marketing strategy. It has been on the tip of everyone’s tongue.
There is no denying that Apple has created a great advertising plan to showcase the iPad. Seeing the “I” in front of any technological device’s name is a clear indication that Apple owns it. This has been their trademark for years. And whether or not someone made the connection between feminine products and a computer, the only thing that matters is that everyone knew who was introducing them to this new product. Also, it may have made more women interested in this new product. Maybe the top Apple executives thought that women fit into the stereotypical image of not being as tech savvy as men. Is there proof that gender determines technological differences? The control of these top executives, men, can spark many of questions. Would the name have been different if a woman had a say into the name-making process?
So why does this matter? It questions and forces people to look at society though a magnifying glass. This “controversy” forces one to question men and women’s role in the media. Apple, a very popular brand, is run mostly by men. Should there be more diversity in their offices? Does this affect the way products are shown to the public? Should there be an equal representation of men and women views (whatever they are) when advertising? Do big companies such as Apple look past this issue, because they know people will buy their products anyway? These are all questions to explore when buying any product.
Any thoughts?
-Dominique
Is Obama Having a Positive Affect on Rap Music Today???
Nationally know Rapper, Common, introduces us to the "Obama Effect." In a CNN article, Common states that "he is already seeing signs that Obama is making a mark on a musical genre often vilified because of its focus on drugs, violence and the degradation of women." Common believes that rappers are going to focus more on justice issues and other positive things because "the whole chain-shining-and-rim era is gone, that's like super-played out." People are tired of the same songs that are about 'nothing', all of this, Common believes, is because of the "Obama Effect."
This article was interesting to me because I have stopped listening to rap music because I was tired of feeling degraded as a woman. however, if the rap genre is about to change to issues that actually have logical and respectful meanings than I'm sure I will want to listen again. I am interested that Common thinks that Obama has something to do with the change. He never gave any specifics as to why he called it the "Obama Effect", he only said that since Obama is in office, the genre is changing. I would like to know what makes Obama the 'signal' for change. Is it because he is Black, young, and or "down-to-earth"? We can all see that Obama has a heart for the young people in America, but can he really be given the credit for a more positive rap genre? Do the consumers get any credit for the desire to hear something new that has a positive message?
I think this is important because Rap music is a highly influential medium. It is a medium that has an affect on the "dress-down" fashion, and even new slang words. If Rap music begins to promote things like education, justice, or peace, how would this world as we know it change? Will young people become more serious about the country we live in? Will it allow for a better connection between the young and old? I am curious to see the progress of this hopefully changing genre. I hope you are too.
~Lexi
*** If you want to read the "Obama Effect" acticle here it is: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/common.obama.hip.hop/index.html
This article was interesting to me because I have stopped listening to rap music because I was tired of feeling degraded as a woman. however, if the rap genre is about to change to issues that actually have logical and respectful meanings than I'm sure I will want to listen again. I am interested that Common thinks that Obama has something to do with the change. He never gave any specifics as to why he called it the "Obama Effect", he only said that since Obama is in office, the genre is changing. I would like to know what makes Obama the 'signal' for change. Is it because he is Black, young, and or "down-to-earth"? We can all see that Obama has a heart for the young people in America, but can he really be given the credit for a more positive rap genre? Do the consumers get any credit for the desire to hear something new that has a positive message?
I think this is important because Rap music is a highly influential medium. It is a medium that has an affect on the "dress-down" fashion, and even new slang words. If Rap music begins to promote things like education, justice, or peace, how would this world as we know it change? Will young people become more serious about the country we live in? Will it allow for a better connection between the young and old? I am curious to see the progress of this hopefully changing genre. I hope you are too.
~Lexi
*** If you want to read the "Obama Effect" acticle here it is: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/09/23/common.obama.hip.hop/index.html
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
racism in the media
www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/18/juan-williams-martin-luther-king-blacks-whites-pew-poll
This article discusses why in some papers, more specifically The New York Times and The Washington Post, did not cover Martin Luther King Day, and believes this to be the old rival between "us vs. them racial politics." Pew Research Center for the People conducted a poll that showed majority of whites and blacks "believe values held by blacks and whites have become more similar in the past decade. According to the article, the line between blacks and whites is slowly disappearing. The article continues on about people finally agreeing that interracial living situations is becoming more acceptable and other progresses when it comes to blacks and whites intermixing. However, since all this progress is being made, why is it not being covered in the media? The author believes it is because black Americans and even more specifically, black civil rights leaders, don't want to even acknowledge this progress. Why? Because, "...blacks fear white America...might point to any admission of racial progress as evidence that there was no more work to be done to heal the damage done to contemporary American life by racism." The author points out that there was plenty of room on newspaper pages for racial slurs and inappropriate words yet no room for the progress. As the author writes, what would Dr. King say? The author ends on a somewhat disgusted note, saying, "...maybe they, like the old hustlers and racists, think racial progress is not good for business."
This article points out many good yet bad things. Firstly, there is a significant progree being made between uniting both black and white Americans. The article states that interracial living situations are becoming more accepted and that black Americans are finally getting paid the same amount as white Americans. However, with the good also comes the bad. Obviously, black Americans are probably timid and nervous about this seemingly huge step. At any moment, they probably feel like they could fall back and take two giant steps back, setting them back in their progress once again. I definitely think they have every reason to be nervous and apprehensive about this.I can only hope for the best and contribute my own opinions on equality. On the other hand, I think the media feeds off of "drama" and almost enjoys pointing out a racial slur. Sure, it is definitely a big deal for someone to call a black American something inappropriate but does putting that news on the front page make everyone take a step back? Does it make the black Americans think, "I knew this was too good to be true. Nothing has changed." And does it make the white Americans uncomfortable and guilty, therefore withdrawing themselves from black Americans? These are all things to be considered when it comes to this sticky situation.
So, why does this matter? Why bother reading the obnoxiously long paragraphs above? Because this is happening around us and to the people around us. Don't you want to be able to date and live with whoever you want, despite their skin color? And don't you think everyone should get paid the same for a certain job, despite their skin color? Any of these things could happen to you, to someone you know/love. It's important to read things and pay attention to how race is handled in the media because you don't want to contribute to something that will have a negative affect on both black and white Americans.
-audra
This article discusses why in some papers, more specifically The New York Times and The Washington Post, did not cover Martin Luther King Day, and believes this to be the old rival between "us vs. them racial politics." Pew Research Center for the People conducted a poll that showed majority of whites and blacks "believe values held by blacks and whites have become more similar in the past decade. According to the article, the line between blacks and whites is slowly disappearing. The article continues on about people finally agreeing that interracial living situations is becoming more acceptable and other progresses when it comes to blacks and whites intermixing. However, since all this progress is being made, why is it not being covered in the media? The author believes it is because black Americans and even more specifically, black civil rights leaders, don't want to even acknowledge this progress. Why? Because, "...blacks fear white America...might point to any admission of racial progress as evidence that there was no more work to be done to heal the damage done to contemporary American life by racism." The author points out that there was plenty of room on newspaper pages for racial slurs and inappropriate words yet no room for the progress. As the author writes, what would Dr. King say? The author ends on a somewhat disgusted note, saying, "...maybe they, like the old hustlers and racists, think racial progress is not good for business."
This article points out many good yet bad things. Firstly, there is a significant progree being made between uniting both black and white Americans. The article states that interracial living situations are becoming more accepted and that black Americans are finally getting paid the same amount as white Americans. However, with the good also comes the bad. Obviously, black Americans are probably timid and nervous about this seemingly huge step. At any moment, they probably feel like they could fall back and take two giant steps back, setting them back in their progress once again. I definitely think they have every reason to be nervous and apprehensive about this.I can only hope for the best and contribute my own opinions on equality. On the other hand, I think the media feeds off of "drama" and almost enjoys pointing out a racial slur. Sure, it is definitely a big deal for someone to call a black American something inappropriate but does putting that news on the front page make everyone take a step back? Does it make the black Americans think, "I knew this was too good to be true. Nothing has changed." And does it make the white Americans uncomfortable and guilty, therefore withdrawing themselves from black Americans? These are all things to be considered when it comes to this sticky situation.
So, why does this matter? Why bother reading the obnoxiously long paragraphs above? Because this is happening around us and to the people around us. Don't you want to be able to date and live with whoever you want, despite their skin color? And don't you think everyone should get paid the same for a certain job, despite their skin color? Any of these things could happen to you, to someone you know/love. It's important to read things and pay attention to how race is handled in the media because you don't want to contribute to something that will have a negative affect on both black and white Americans.
-audra
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
