During the last two weeks in class we have talked a lot about Television and Advertising and how they dominate our life and culture. Many people across the United States watch more than 8 hours of Television every singe day. They are consuming a lot of media and it shows that we are heading off to the digital age where everything now is becoming more about electronic. Television is important to American society because that is how majority of the people get their information about what is going on and what happening in the world. Television is also evolving as back then the picture was in black and white whereas now it's in color, and majority of the TV's now are in High Definition in which people can see clear beautiful pictures while watching their favorite programs, shows or sports. There are also now new channels in which it pertains to somebody's favorite activity such as the cooking channel for all those people that like to cook, Fox Soccer Channel for soccer lovers, E Network and Bravo for all those that like high drama and reality shows and many more. You can also view TV on your laptop or computer provided with a good internet connection. All the shows that you missed on TV you can most likely go online and watch a re-run of them with very limited commercial interruption.
We also talked about Advertising and the way that it shapes our culture. A lot of people say that this is the branding culture and that we are attracted more to the brand rather than the product that is being sold. Whenever we see a commercial on TV such as a Nike ad we immediately go "I want these sneakers, or that blouse" because we are usually associated with that brand. Advertiser's spend billions of dollars each year to promote their products that people can buy them. With the help of the internet now and days they are also able to advertise their products online. Advertiser's usually though like to target kids in particular because they know that if the kids watch an ad on TV and they like it, chances are that they are going to start nagging their parents so that they can buy the products that they want. Kids are even targeted in Elementary school as companies are now placing more ads. Such as Coca-Cola placing a vending machine so that kids could go and buy it. We are becoming a nation of advertising and people now are merely seen for their value. If you were to go somewhere and you were wearing something nice then most people would immediately assume that you come from a higher class. Ads play a huge role in our life because we see them everywhere we go such as online, billboards, TV, and even listening to the radio on the morning.
In conclusion I would like to say that Advertising and Television play a big role in our society. However though there are negative effects that go with it too. Such as if you watch too much Television it could be very bad for health and it may lead to problems in the future. A study done in England showed that If you watch too much TV it may be very bad for your heart and damage other cells in the body. Some people have actually gotten brain problems because of how much TV they are exposed too. Advertising to children is also wrong because it is unethical and unmoral. Kids cannot grasp of what is being advertised to them and companies know this and that it why they try to take full advantage of the situation. You should not be allowed to advertise to children that are at least 12 or younger because they are just not going to get it. As soon as they see a product they are going to immediately want it without thinking about it.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
Election 2012
This past Tuesday one of the most critical elections in some time took place in which President Barack Obama won re-election over Governor Mitt Romney. At times it was a very close election as both candidates seemed to be having momentum going into the final round but Obama pulled through winning the Electoral College over Romney by a landslide. However even though Obama won the Electoral college, he did not the popular vote, and many are voicing their concern over whether we should change the way we elect the President. Some felt that Romney was cheated out of the Presidency because he won the popular vote by well over 1 million voters compared to that of Obama. For me this was an important election because this was the first time that I was able to vote. I voted for Obama because my family is largely Democratic and I thought that Obama deserved another 4 years to clean up the mess that former President George W. Bush put us in. However to be honest with you deep down inside I wanted to vote for neither of them because they are both incompetent and don't really know how to get us back on track. I wanted Ron Paul to win the Republican Presidential Nomination because I thought that he could bring true change, and he was a man in which he went by the constitution and defended people's rights and liberties. Who know though maybe Obama getting re-elected is a good thing and now he will have second chance to help this country get back on it's feet.
I want to touch on some things in which both candidates said when they were running about what they were going to do if they became President. Mitt Romney said that he "wanted to increase defense spending, lower interest rates, cut taxes for all the classes including the wealthy." Obama wanted to decrease defense spending because the military did not ask for it. He said that he wanted to "lower taxes for the poor and the middle class, while having the wealthy pay a little more." He said that adding to his plan he would decrease the nation deficit by about 4 trillion dollars. I thought that Obama plan was all right in terms of lowering the deficit, and he had everything all laid out. Romney's plan to me did not make sense because as former President Bill Clinton said that it's"arithmetic" and the numbers just don't add up. I agree with him because we would be in more in debt instead of cutting the deficit and wasteful spending. Also there were some lies and inconsistency when Romney said that "when he was governor of Massachusetts he had one of the top economies in the U.S., and was a job maker." Looking that up I actually found out that when Romney was governor of Massachusetts they were 48th in the nation in economy and creating jobs. Romney also said that he will create "12 million jobs", but the ironic thing that I find out is he never tells us how he is going to create them. Basically what I learned from Romney is that towards the end I would notice that this man would practically say anything to get elected even if it was lies. Obama actually had some good plans for us especially when it came to energy resources and education. Education is the number one key and if people are going to have to find good jobs that pay them good money they will need a good education to get them.
The last thing is that looking at what they said about foreign policy, both men had no clue what they were talking about and this concerns me. Romney said that "Russia is the U.S. biggest enemy", and it was nice to know that Romney thinks that we still live in the period of the Cold War. Also Romney has some issues when it comes to Iran, and that he wants to open up another war in which we can't afford and our military is already battered from Iraq and Afghanistan. The only good thing I picked about the foreign policy is when Obama said that "our troops will be out of there by 2014", and it was good to know that he wants to bring our service man and women in the armed forces back home so we can do some nation building here. However though he blew it when it came to Libya and when our Ambassador was killed as he should have sent extra security to make sure that they were safe, knowing that he was warned that an attack might happen based on Intelligence. He failed to react and as a result three people were killed, and Romney attacked him hard on that. In conclusion I would say that hopefully Obama can get us back on track and not send us back down. He will have a tough job because the house is primarily Republican and they will not let him pass anything. I hope that the two sides can work together for the sake of this country so that we can create a better and brighter future for our children.
I want to touch on some things in which both candidates said when they were running about what they were going to do if they became President. Mitt Romney said that he "wanted to increase defense spending, lower interest rates, cut taxes for all the classes including the wealthy." Obama wanted to decrease defense spending because the military did not ask for it. He said that he wanted to "lower taxes for the poor and the middle class, while having the wealthy pay a little more." He said that adding to his plan he would decrease the nation deficit by about 4 trillion dollars. I thought that Obama plan was all right in terms of lowering the deficit, and he had everything all laid out. Romney's plan to me did not make sense because as former President Bill Clinton said that it's"arithmetic" and the numbers just don't add up. I agree with him because we would be in more in debt instead of cutting the deficit and wasteful spending. Also there were some lies and inconsistency when Romney said that "when he was governor of Massachusetts he had one of the top economies in the U.S., and was a job maker." Looking that up I actually found out that when Romney was governor of Massachusetts they were 48th in the nation in economy and creating jobs. Romney also said that he will create "12 million jobs", but the ironic thing that I find out is he never tells us how he is going to create them. Basically what I learned from Romney is that towards the end I would notice that this man would practically say anything to get elected even if it was lies. Obama actually had some good plans for us especially when it came to energy resources and education. Education is the number one key and if people are going to have to find good jobs that pay them good money they will need a good education to get them.
The last thing is that looking at what they said about foreign policy, both men had no clue what they were talking about and this concerns me. Romney said that "Russia is the U.S. biggest enemy", and it was nice to know that Romney thinks that we still live in the period of the Cold War. Also Romney has some issues when it comes to Iran, and that he wants to open up another war in which we can't afford and our military is already battered from Iraq and Afghanistan. The only good thing I picked about the foreign policy is when Obama said that "our troops will be out of there by 2014", and it was good to know that he wants to bring our service man and women in the armed forces back home so we can do some nation building here. However though he blew it when it came to Libya and when our Ambassador was killed as he should have sent extra security to make sure that they were safe, knowing that he was warned that an attack might happen based on Intelligence. He failed to react and as a result three people were killed, and Romney attacked him hard on that. In conclusion I would say that hopefully Obama can get us back on track and not send us back down. He will have a tough job because the house is primarily Republican and they will not let him pass anything. I hope that the two sides can work together for the sake of this country so that we can create a better and brighter future for our children.
Friday, October 12, 2012
The Future of Books and Newspapers
Throughout the past week we have talked about the futures of the book industries and the newspaper industries. How E-books are starting to take over hard copy books, and how online news is starting to replace the hard copy that we often get at our doorstep or in the driveway. I'm first going to start off with the book industry and how it is being affected by E-books. E-books are books in which you can buy online, and you can access from anywhere including your phone, laptop, I-pod or any other digital device. E-books are actually a lot cheaper then a hard copy book which is why many people are using it. However though if this trend continues then E-books might replace the book industry for good. Hard copy sales these days are actually declining as more people are tuning in to E-books. The book industry though is still strong, as Economist claim that by 2010, U.S. book sales will reach 47 billion dollars. However though we are in the year 2012 and I am sure that number has dropped significantly. Competition now is at it's highest and it is not looking good for the book industries. Not only that but publishers and Authors are making less money with E-books then a hard copy book. It's something that we will have to watch out for in the near future to see what happens.
The Newspaper Industry is basically going through the same dilemma as Book Industry is going through. Hard copy newspapers are being replaced by online news, as more people are turning to the Internet to get their information. Companies are starting to loose money as less people are subscribing to newspapers and going online. Newspapers are huge especially if it's a local because it keeps you updated on what is happening. Most people have that specific routine in the morning where they pick their newspapers up to start the day. Well that now is being jeopardized because most people now and days are going to the Internet and looking up news there. The other day we talked about how this newspaper in New Orleans which has been there for more than 150 years is starting to go more online. They also laid off 200 staff members, and they cut the circulation from 5 days a week to only three days a week. People in New Orleans were outraged, as another newspaper which serves 70 miles away offered to give out local news five days a week. It is something that is closely being watched by many big media markets around the sates as to see whether this scenario would wok. This may be what the future of news papers may look like, and the hard copy newspapers are also starting to loose advertisement money as advertisers are taking theirs ads online. We may go into this digital area in which everything where we get our information from will have to be digital.
In conclusion I would have to say that the future of the Newspaper and the Book Industry as far as hard copy goes is in major risk. As we are moving more into a technological age everything now is starting to be more digital. In my personal opinion I don't think that hard copy books will be completely replaced by E-books because I actually like reading the book in my hands as do so many other people. I think that E-books are going to become big because more people find them cheaper then hard copy books. As far as the newspaper industry goes I think that online news is going to become big, but it's not going to replace the hard copy newspaper completely. A lot of people like I said have that ordinary routine in the morning in which they get that newspaper and they start going through it before beginning their day, and it's going to be very difficult to replace that. Plus not that many people have laptops and I-pods so It will be difficult for them to access news. The bottom line is that the more technological advance we get the more we are bound to use everything digitally, so the future of the Newspaper industries and the Book Industries that have been there for so long may not really be there any more.
The Newspaper Industry is basically going through the same dilemma as Book Industry is going through. Hard copy newspapers are being replaced by online news, as more people are turning to the Internet to get their information. Companies are starting to loose money as less people are subscribing to newspapers and going online. Newspapers are huge especially if it's a local because it keeps you updated on what is happening. Most people have that specific routine in the morning where they pick their newspapers up to start the day. Well that now is being jeopardized because most people now and days are going to the Internet and looking up news there. The other day we talked about how this newspaper in New Orleans which has been there for more than 150 years is starting to go more online. They also laid off 200 staff members, and they cut the circulation from 5 days a week to only three days a week. People in New Orleans were outraged, as another newspaper which serves 70 miles away offered to give out local news five days a week. It is something that is closely being watched by many big media markets around the sates as to see whether this scenario would wok. This may be what the future of news papers may look like, and the hard copy newspapers are also starting to loose advertisement money as advertisers are taking theirs ads online. We may go into this digital area in which everything where we get our information from will have to be digital.
In conclusion I would have to say that the future of the Newspaper and the Book Industry as far as hard copy goes is in major risk. As we are moving more into a technological age everything now is starting to be more digital. In my personal opinion I don't think that hard copy books will be completely replaced by E-books because I actually like reading the book in my hands as do so many other people. I think that E-books are going to become big because more people find them cheaper then hard copy books. As far as the newspaper industry goes I think that online news is going to become big, but it's not going to replace the hard copy newspaper completely. A lot of people like I said have that ordinary routine in the morning in which they get that newspaper and they start going through it before beginning their day, and it's going to be very difficult to replace that. Plus not that many people have laptops and I-pods so It will be difficult for them to access news. The bottom line is that the more technological advance we get the more we are bound to use everything digitally, so the future of the Newspaper industries and the Book Industries that have been there for so long may not really be there any more.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Disney and Media views on people
One of the things we have done since our last blog is that we recently watched a movie in class that dealt with Disney and the powerful effects on children. The movie though primarily focused on the negative aspects of Disney and how it affects the children. In the movie there is a professor from Penn State University that wrote a lot of bad things about Disney and he got a lot of heat for it. He states that when he was writing about them in a negative way people asked him "well aren't you afraid", and he said he always was "surprised" to hear that. I think that one of the reasons that people said that to him was because of how powerful Disney is and the positive images that it portrays in the public and the media. Frankly majority of people always think that Disney is such a big company and most of it's content is directly focused to young children. The professor would go on to say that he "got a lot of backlash" after he published his book and the negative views that he has on Disney. He said "especially the interviews on the radio", where people would unanimously call and voice their displeasure at him. The professor pointed out that Disney is not telling the whole story and sometimes is very hypocritical. I personally am in the middle of this debate because he does make a case, but I think that at the same time Disney is one of the best companies out there and not a whole lot of their content is really that offensive or deemed really bad. It's a very interesting story because it sows the negative aspects of Disney, and that is very unusual for a company that is so well contributed to kids.
In the movie there were a lot of people that were voicing their displeasure at some of the Disney movies that were made. They pointed out that some of the movies displayed the wrong image about people, and it created a lot of stereotypes. One lady mentioned how in all of the Disney movies the villain or the bad character was always "Black" and not some other type of color. It created that stereotype that black people are always bad because of how they are portrayed, but in reality we know that this is not true. Another person said that in one of the movies it portrayed people that were Arab or of Arabian descent that they are very bad and cold blooded people. In one of the scenes it showed the princess giving the boy an apple because he was hungry, and when the store owner asked for money, she replied that "I don't have any" , and then he threatened to cut off her hand for stealing. We know that this is not true because as one of the people in the movie mentioned that you get three warnings if you steal, and it's only after the third time that you do it that they would chop off your hand. It shows though that kids get the wrong message about Arabs and that because of watching the movie they get the message that they are bad. We all know though that this is not true and that Arabs are nice people and not that way that they are portrayed in the media or films. I would have to say that i agree with most of these people that Disney sometimes does enforce bad stereotypes in their movies. I think that they need to stop because it could have a lasting effect on the child as he or she grows up, and they could end up getting the wrong message from it.
The last thing that i will talk about will be the discussions that we had in class the other day about the movie and when everyone got a chance to voice their opinions and thoughts. In all honesty I thought that this was a great movie with a lot of compelling evidence and backed up theories. It actually showed Disney in a bad spotlight in which I have never seen them before because of their good image among the public and the media. A lot of people on the class voiced their concerns about the stereotypes that are portrayed and I for the most part agreed with them. I think that Disney needs to do a better job of creating a good image for everybody and not just for certain people. We talked about how people are viewed in a bad way and not in just in Disney movies but in the media as well, and of course what gets reported and what not. I think that the media in general does a very poor job of reporting stories as majority of them are just negative, and when I see the news at night all I hear is negative stories and very rarely any positive ones. A lot of people in the class voiced their displeasure in how the media does their reporting's, and a lot of people blame the media for the bad stereotypes that are created. I agree 100% with them because I think the media is largely responsible for all of these bad views, and a good example would be how Arabs are portrayed as being terrorist because of 9/11 and that all Muslim people are bad. We all know that is not true, but yet this is exactly what the media wants us to think and believe. In conclusion I would say that media no doubt plays a large role in our live and I am sure that the class would agree with me because it shapes up about what we believe and how we see other people, but we have to be careful though as not to believe everything the media tells without doing some research because in the end they may be spilling lies and you may never catch up to the real truth.
In the movie there were a lot of people that were voicing their displeasure at some of the Disney movies that were made. They pointed out that some of the movies displayed the wrong image about people, and it created a lot of stereotypes. One lady mentioned how in all of the Disney movies the villain or the bad character was always "Black" and not some other type of color. It created that stereotype that black people are always bad because of how they are portrayed, but in reality we know that this is not true. Another person said that in one of the movies it portrayed people that were Arab or of Arabian descent that they are very bad and cold blooded people. In one of the scenes it showed the princess giving the boy an apple because he was hungry, and when the store owner asked for money, she replied that "I don't have any" , and then he threatened to cut off her hand for stealing. We know that this is not true because as one of the people in the movie mentioned that you get three warnings if you steal, and it's only after the third time that you do it that they would chop off your hand. It shows though that kids get the wrong message about Arabs and that because of watching the movie they get the message that they are bad. We all know though that this is not true and that Arabs are nice people and not that way that they are portrayed in the media or films. I would have to say that i agree with most of these people that Disney sometimes does enforce bad stereotypes in their movies. I think that they need to stop because it could have a lasting effect on the child as he or she grows up, and they could end up getting the wrong message from it.
The last thing that i will talk about will be the discussions that we had in class the other day about the movie and when everyone got a chance to voice their opinions and thoughts. In all honesty I thought that this was a great movie with a lot of compelling evidence and backed up theories. It actually showed Disney in a bad spotlight in which I have never seen them before because of their good image among the public and the media. A lot of people on the class voiced their concerns about the stereotypes that are portrayed and I for the most part agreed with them. I think that Disney needs to do a better job of creating a good image for everybody and not just for certain people. We talked about how people are viewed in a bad way and not in just in Disney movies but in the media as well, and of course what gets reported and what not. I think that the media in general does a very poor job of reporting stories as majority of them are just negative, and when I see the news at night all I hear is negative stories and very rarely any positive ones. A lot of people in the class voiced their displeasure in how the media does their reporting's, and a lot of people blame the media for the bad stereotypes that are created. I agree 100% with them because I think the media is largely responsible for all of these bad views, and a good example would be how Arabs are portrayed as being terrorist because of 9/11 and that all Muslim people are bad. We all know that is not true, but yet this is exactly what the media wants us to think and believe. In conclusion I would say that media no doubt plays a large role in our live and I am sure that the class would agree with me because it shapes up about what we believe and how we see other people, but we have to be careful though as not to believe everything the media tells without doing some research because in the end they may be spilling lies and you may never catch up to the real truth.
Friday, September 14, 2012
1st Blog
One of the things that I learned for the past three chapters is that not everywhere in the world you get free media where you get to say what you want to say. Majority of other places around the world are Authoritarian where owners of mass media are supporters of a regime. There may also be Communist media where the government determines what gets reported and whats not as to convey communist beliefs. There is also the United States where we use Libertarian media in which individuals are capable of making sound decisions for themselves, and the government rarely intervenes. Here in the United States we have rights and one of those important rights is Freedom of Speech which is the first Amendment. It enables us to express our opinions about anything including if it is against the government. Other nations though do not have that as anybody that tries to speak out against a regime or government is immediately killed or is sent a waning. Personally I think we take our rights here in the US for granted because we are probably so used to it, but we have to remember that in other nations people don't have this, and they are persecuted for their beliefs and their opinions.
During one of the class days we went over something that was very controversial in which the instructor put up a photo of caskets of dead soldiers that have died in the War on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was very controversial as the class was pretty much divided on weather to show it or not. When the war fist started in 2003, President George W. Bush passed a law that banned all photos of the dead from the war to be shown in the media. It was not until President Barack Obama was sworned in office 2009 as he decided to change this. Overall my personal view was that I think photos such as that should remain private and not be shown out of respect to the victims families. Now I understand what other people think in that this photo showed Patriotism, and the sacrifice that these brave men and women have done for us and this is the least that we could do for them. I still think that we need to show privacy and let the Victim's families heel during this difficult time for them. I think privacy is a big issue in media as to where to you draw the point especially during the time of war. A photo can mean a thousand words and many people might interpret it differently. I still think that people deserve their privacy especially soldiers that put their lives on the line for us every single day.
The last thing that i will talk about will be National Security and the media. One of the major things that we talked about was the New York Times vs the Pentagon papers. This whole story came about when there was a leak from the government and the New York time were able to access critical information about the Vietnam War. The United Sates government of course did not want want them to publish the papers and took them to court. Unfortunately for the government they lost and the papers were published drawing amid protest and anger from the American people. I personally think that the papers should have been released because people have the right to know. The government however defines it as "clear and present danger", however though I don't think they can lie to the American people especially about a war that took the lives of 58,000 Americans. What the Pentagon Papers did was damage the reputation of the government even more, as they did not have a huge approval rating at the time because of all the protests that were being held all over the country against the war. After the war was over the government blamed the media for the US not winning because it was giving away key information to the public that the government did not want them to know. I personally think that the media did the right thing in publishing the papers because people have the right to know especially during a time of war. In 2003 the US sent embedded journalist in which they traveled with a unit and reported what was happening. Obviously since the Vietnam War many restriction have been placed on the media as to what they can report and not report.
During one of the class days we went over something that was very controversial in which the instructor put up a photo of caskets of dead soldiers that have died in the War on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was very controversial as the class was pretty much divided on weather to show it or not. When the war fist started in 2003, President George W. Bush passed a law that banned all photos of the dead from the war to be shown in the media. It was not until President Barack Obama was sworned in office 2009 as he decided to change this. Overall my personal view was that I think photos such as that should remain private and not be shown out of respect to the victims families. Now I understand what other people think in that this photo showed Patriotism, and the sacrifice that these brave men and women have done for us and this is the least that we could do for them. I still think that we need to show privacy and let the Victim's families heel during this difficult time for them. I think privacy is a big issue in media as to where to you draw the point especially during the time of war. A photo can mean a thousand words and many people might interpret it differently. I still think that people deserve their privacy especially soldiers that put their lives on the line for us every single day.
The last thing that i will talk about will be National Security and the media. One of the major things that we talked about was the New York Times vs the Pentagon papers. This whole story came about when there was a leak from the government and the New York time were able to access critical information about the Vietnam War. The United Sates government of course did not want want them to publish the papers and took them to court. Unfortunately for the government they lost and the papers were published drawing amid protest and anger from the American people. I personally think that the papers should have been released because people have the right to know. The government however defines it as "clear and present danger", however though I don't think they can lie to the American people especially about a war that took the lives of 58,000 Americans. What the Pentagon Papers did was damage the reputation of the government even more, as they did not have a huge approval rating at the time because of all the protests that were being held all over the country against the war. After the war was over the government blamed the media for the US not winning because it was giving away key information to the public that the government did not want them to know. I personally think that the media did the right thing in publishing the papers because people have the right to know especially during a time of war. In 2003 the US sent embedded journalist in which they traveled with a unit and reported what was happening. Obviously since the Vietnam War many restriction have been placed on the media as to what they can report and not report.
Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)