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
Saturday, February 27, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
