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

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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.

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