Is the United States racist, or does the media fire them up? Some people wonder which one is correct. Many people may hate having a black president, and say racist stuff, but in reality, the only reason why he became our president is because we voted for him. He won with clearly nine million votes. That means an awful lot of white people voted for him. Yet we still fight and say hate words towards him. Yes we have the right to freedom of speech, but on the other hand we are limited to things we can say. But i tend to believe even thought those numbers for voting for Obama are relatively small, the media is the one to blame for. It fires us American's up and can do damage.
One example can be what people believe on the health-care, and what Obama's decisions are. They are debating whether racism has been fueling the health-care debate. Some people are comparing him to Hitler. They are saying that Obama is a racist and hates white people. These are hatred words, because they are referring him to someone that was very bad. They say he's going to set up interment camps storing thousands of guillotines for mass executions. These are dangerous words to say, not only does Obama deal with this, but other people may believe it and get led on. This creates power over the media.
Leading the American's can lead into fearful times. Some people believe that the health-care debate has re-ignited the racial debate. Some believe the government was out to get Obama and was disturbed that Obama had been elected president. Someone even said, "the holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews." Not only are the people getting angry, but some are even killing themselves. Which is crazy! We cant blame Obama for that, because he ran for president and won.
Some want to believe that the racist right wingers are just the left overs that greg hate in our society now. They are becoming more enlightened the more Obama is president. Not only are people getting mad on their own, the media are making them. The media state stuff that is true, but can't go that far. But because of the freedom of speech, and stating true facts, they can say anything they want. Some people tend to believe that someone will kill Obama like in the past history of what happened. For Timothy McVeigh and who murdered Martin Luther King. Or Jon Wilkes who assassinated President Lincoln. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and either way will use hatred words. As long as they don't violate the rules of what they are saying.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Is Hate Speech in the Media Directly Affecting our Culture?
The main question that Giroux, Weatherby, and Scoggins are trying to answer is does the media really propose hate speech directly to people? Some argue that is does and some argue it doesn't. This is because of the first amendment. This allows anyone the freedom of speech to the press and in general. But hate speech is directly exempted from the first amendment. Hate speech simply demonstrates a level of contempt towards other people, but really the term is meant to convey the deliberate bias towards and discrimination against any person at the time. This would be the way it is approached to the person and is incited. So both of these authors talk about the way they disguise the different forms of hate speech in different forms of media.
Scholar Henry Giroux questions why our culture has changed dramatically; becoming so mean spirited people. Girouz analyzes the politics of 'pedagogy of hate.' He concluded that this is an exercise to others for the power that ultimately has created 'culture of cruelty.' He analyzed this by addressing the media content in news and popular fare. He becomes critical of the media that covers the politics of hate in the culture. he identified how information and entertainment media normalizes the rude culture. This is taught by showing the meanness. Thereby; the creating culture shows what they think is right, so others of course are going to follow since the 'media' says is okay. But in reality, it isn't and they know that. Media just leads to one thing to another.
On the other hand, Georgie Ann Weatherby and Brian Scoggins both check out the web pages of the top four web extremist, and talk about how they persuade people. From their findings they find that the top four sites dram from traditional tactics in a soft and generous way. This emphasizes recruiting others to come. This then plays down the message of hate, so no one barely notices thinking they are not bad people. And simply good, because the media said so. From the main stream top four sites, they attempt to gain compliance from people who can be recruited to the extremist groups side. This only happens because the internet allows people to access any information that they desire and want. This then allows organizations to get their message out what they want to get across to the followers.
Either way, when the media says something is okay, people and followers are already going to assume that it is okay. But it really isn't. They just want people to be on their side. Hate speech is almost always evaluated based upon their context and the way it is presented. People may find it a way to show hatred and some may find themselves agreeing. But the first amendment states 'freedom of speech' to everyone, but it's just directly implying to the people who actually have information to share with the public and is considered important. Either way, no one will ever agree on what hate speech is really called. There will always be controversy's, and situations.
Scholar Henry Giroux questions why our culture has changed dramatically; becoming so mean spirited people. Girouz analyzes the politics of 'pedagogy of hate.' He concluded that this is an exercise to others for the power that ultimately has created 'culture of cruelty.' He analyzed this by addressing the media content in news and popular fare. He becomes critical of the media that covers the politics of hate in the culture. he identified how information and entertainment media normalizes the rude culture. This is taught by showing the meanness. Thereby; the creating culture shows what they think is right, so others of course are going to follow since the 'media' says is okay. But in reality, it isn't and they know that. Media just leads to one thing to another.
On the other hand, Georgie Ann Weatherby and Brian Scoggins both check out the web pages of the top four web extremist, and talk about how they persuade people. From their findings they find that the top four sites dram from traditional tactics in a soft and generous way. This emphasizes recruiting others to come. This then plays down the message of hate, so no one barely notices thinking they are not bad people. And simply good, because the media said so. From the main stream top four sites, they attempt to gain compliance from people who can be recruited to the extremist groups side. This only happens because the internet allows people to access any information that they desire and want. This then allows organizations to get their message out what they want to get across to the followers.
Either way, when the media says something is okay, people and followers are already going to assume that it is okay. But it really isn't. They just want people to be on their side. Hate speech is almost always evaluated based upon their context and the way it is presented. People may find it a way to show hatred and some may find themselves agreeing. But the first amendment states 'freedom of speech' to everyone, but it's just directly implying to the people who actually have information to share with the public and is considered important. Either way, no one will ever agree on what hate speech is really called. There will always be controversy's, and situations.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Do Media Represent Realistic Image's of Arabs?
Issue three discuses whether Media represents realistic images of Arabs. Ever since September 11th happened, Arabs are viewed as whole new people. Just because the one group Al Qaeda set up this attack, and blew up the Trade Centers, it doesn't mean that every other Arab wants to too. But since it was such a tragic event, we have no one else to blame but for themselves. Since we have had history on the understanding the impact of racial profiling, based on stereotypes is what distorts the word; The Others. Since they are being singles out, we want to refer them as a whole different species, and not like us. But since we single out people these days, it can put multiple harmful effects on what we call the others.
In this issue, Gal Beckerman says yes, the media represents realistic images on Arabs. She provides the readers with interesting information. She tells us about how the Arab's use the internet and Blog about their life over in the Middle East. She list's a few examples of what they say, and it straight up tells us they live a normal lifestyle like we do here in the US. They just have different believes, but not everyone will agree with each other. But because the Arab's are blogging, it gives the public a chance to read about their situations and understand them as individuals; and rather be racist or judge on their ethnicity. This is a good thing so we can see where they are coming from. Yes there are the good people, and yes there are the bad people. But because of the tragic event that happened, now we tend to lean a judge someone on their looks; and not for who they are. But on the other hand the blogger sphere forces the Arab people with contrary opiniions to engage with each others.
On the other hand, Jack Shaheen says no the media does not represent realistic images of Arab's. He argues that Arabs have been the most maligned stereotyped in popular cultures. This has happened because of 9/11. I believe this is because now we are scared of Arabs, and every time we see one we thing of the Trade Centers. We don't want to face our fears, and remain one sided. So we simply call them the others. They have nothing to do with us. These people are just as normal as we are, but live in a demanding country. He also discusses how Hollywood influences images in movies and TV to politicians and us citizens; which of course contribute to public opinions on them people. Godfrey Cheshire states 'The Arab stereotype is the only vicious racial stereotype that's not only still permitted but actively endorsed by Hollywood. They creates images of Arab's as enemies, and bad people. If they speak a different language, come from a different town/village, wear different clothing, they are considered bad, and don't relate to us US people. Of course we are going to be influence by the media because there are 1,150 films that are made to defile Arab's.
After reading both arguments, I have come to believe what our society is really all about. If you aren't the same like everyone else, then you are considered an outsider. The US is free country, anyone can do anything they want; but cannot abide the law. So if your doing something different from someone else, they why are you to be pursued as an other. Either way, the world wont change, because the media has taken over. Stereotypes that are on the media influences people in the society; and this makes us uncomfortable what ourselves, and this leads to people being prejudice. Nothing will change. Good or bad, you will still have a name because of who you are.
In this issue, Gal Beckerman says yes, the media represents realistic images on Arabs. She provides the readers with interesting information. She tells us about how the Arab's use the internet and Blog about their life over in the Middle East. She list's a few examples of what they say, and it straight up tells us they live a normal lifestyle like we do here in the US. They just have different believes, but not everyone will agree with each other. But because the Arab's are blogging, it gives the public a chance to read about their situations and understand them as individuals; and rather be racist or judge on their ethnicity. This is a good thing so we can see where they are coming from. Yes there are the good people, and yes there are the bad people. But because of the tragic event that happened, now we tend to lean a judge someone on their looks; and not for who they are. But on the other hand the blogger sphere forces the Arab people with contrary opiniions to engage with each others.
On the other hand, Jack Shaheen says no the media does not represent realistic images of Arab's. He argues that Arabs have been the most maligned stereotyped in popular cultures. This has happened because of 9/11. I believe this is because now we are scared of Arabs, and every time we see one we thing of the Trade Centers. We don't want to face our fears, and remain one sided. So we simply call them the others. They have nothing to do with us. These people are just as normal as we are, but live in a demanding country. He also discusses how Hollywood influences images in movies and TV to politicians and us citizens; which of course contribute to public opinions on them people. Godfrey Cheshire states 'The Arab stereotype is the only vicious racial stereotype that's not only still permitted but actively endorsed by Hollywood. They creates images of Arab's as enemies, and bad people. If they speak a different language, come from a different town/village, wear different clothing, they are considered bad, and don't relate to us US people. Of course we are going to be influence by the media because there are 1,150 films that are made to defile Arab's.
After reading both arguments, I have come to believe what our society is really all about. If you aren't the same like everyone else, then you are considered an outsider. The US is free country, anyone can do anything they want; but cannot abide the law. So if your doing something different from someone else, they why are you to be pursued as an other. Either way, the world wont change, because the media has taken over. Stereotypes that are on the media influences people in the society; and this makes us uncomfortable what ourselves, and this leads to people being prejudice. Nothing will change. Good or bad, you will still have a name because of who you are.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Do Media Cause Individuals to Develope Neg. Body Images?
The main question is, does the media cause people to be self conscious of themselves? But yes, the media does, they get accused of presenting images that result in negative behaviors. These behaviors shouldn't be happening just from what the people view in advertising and media. The media does have some influences on some people and they tend to construct idea's on their own. The biggest issue with this is the actions and conditions that are considered. As the Ad is being viewed, it tends to lean people to the side that if they take this product it will turn their negative image around, and they will be a whole new person. When people actually try to lose weight like the Ad's tells them and doesn't come through, the person only feels worse then before. This is where Dwrokin/Wachs and Levine/Murnen step in.
Dworkin and Wachs both analyzed that Advertisement tells both men and women that they will have a healthy body if they both buy the product that is advertised and pamper themselves fully. Because of this belief, being fat is something to be feared. Fashion is sold as an imperative. In the days that we live now, health and fitness is the mainstream to our dominant cultural construction of what we call "health." Like I said before, both men and women are starting to be combined as one, as almost the same beings. They both are fearing the topic of being fat, they are being presented in more as a similar manner as objects, and lastly what is being marketed is converging. Even though women and men are being almost similar, 38% of the dieters are men. So the results show that women obviously are more worried about their body image then men, since they are seeing ad's with slim ladies. This forces peer pressure, to be skinny. I believe that all this is just a lead to false Advertisement and to make people feel guilty.
On the other hand both Levine and Murnen investigate magazine advertisements. Their results show that the assumption that media does, is it causes eating disorders to be limited. They believe that the Ad's aren't the things thats causing the lack of body image, but what happens in the past leads up to this. They state that a wide range of social, behavioral, and cultural issues are what lead up to the negative body image's. This then lead's to negative behaviors by women since they tend to get pressured about their weight being right or wrong. Basically media causes the body to dissatisfaction. As young adults grow up and go to school, they are surrounded by Ad's telling them they will be better and more popular if they are skinny, and healthy. All the Ad's try to tell the viewers that if this works on someone then it will work on you. But sometimes that doesn't always work, then makes the person depressed or saddened. This then leads to bad choices later in their lives. Then this is what leads to eating disorders and bad reactions in the future.
I believe either way if they listen to the Ad's or not, everyone wants to be just like everyone else. It's the way of feeling fit in. If everyone is skinny, and there is one fat kid, he'll obviously stick out and then feel the pressure. Then they'll see the Ad, and fall into that same hole that everyone else does. It's like a cycle over and over again. The psychology of a person's body image is the subject that is worth to think about and talk upon. The media wont change, and the only people who can change these problems are yourselves. Ad's get us to drawn up in them, and we are the ones who have to deal with the outcomes.
Dworkin and Wachs both analyzed that Advertisement tells both men and women that they will have a healthy body if they both buy the product that is advertised and pamper themselves fully. Because of this belief, being fat is something to be feared. Fashion is sold as an imperative. In the days that we live now, health and fitness is the mainstream to our dominant cultural construction of what we call "health." Like I said before, both men and women are starting to be combined as one, as almost the same beings. They both are fearing the topic of being fat, they are being presented in more as a similar manner as objects, and lastly what is being marketed is converging. Even though women and men are being almost similar, 38% of the dieters are men. So the results show that women obviously are more worried about their body image then men, since they are seeing ad's with slim ladies. This forces peer pressure, to be skinny. I believe that all this is just a lead to false Advertisement and to make people feel guilty.
On the other hand both Levine and Murnen investigate magazine advertisements. Their results show that the assumption that media does, is it causes eating disorders to be limited. They believe that the Ad's aren't the things thats causing the lack of body image, but what happens in the past leads up to this. They state that a wide range of social, behavioral, and cultural issues are what lead up to the negative body image's. This then lead's to negative behaviors by women since they tend to get pressured about their weight being right or wrong. Basically media causes the body to dissatisfaction. As young adults grow up and go to school, they are surrounded by Ad's telling them they will be better and more popular if they are skinny, and healthy. All the Ad's try to tell the viewers that if this works on someone then it will work on you. But sometimes that doesn't always work, then makes the person depressed or saddened. This then leads to bad choices later in their lives. Then this is what leads to eating disorders and bad reactions in the future.
I believe either way if they listen to the Ad's or not, everyone wants to be just like everyone else. It's the way of feeling fit in. If everyone is skinny, and there is one fat kid, he'll obviously stick out and then feel the pressure. Then they'll see the Ad, and fall into that same hole that everyone else does. It's like a cycle over and over again. The psychology of a person's body image is the subject that is worth to think about and talk upon. The media wont change, and the only people who can change these problems are yourselves. Ad's get us to drawn up in them, and we are the ones who have to deal with the outcomes.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
RA#3 Proposal :)
Final Research Project Proposal
As I was thinking about thinking about an idea for this project, the first thing that came to me was Advertisement; but advertisement on the Spike Channel. The Ad’s on the channel are all about your health and fitness. This channel is all about sports, fitness and comedy. Since my dad watches Spike TV, every single night of the week, I figured this would be an interesting survey to try. I would also learn more about the channel. My whole point for this project is to see whether Spike TV is strictly a men’s or women’s TV show. In my opinion, I believe Spike is an all Men’s show put on the cable.
The very first thing I want to prove out of the whole project is whether this channel is an all men’s TV show, or it’s a mix. I only believe that this channel is made for men because of what is aired on it. Spike TV has extreme shows, with a lot of action and fighting. For example the top show on Spike TV is UFC. Not only is UFC extreme with a lot of blood and action, it also provides tons and tons of Ad’s in the ring where the men fight. These Ad’s are for your health and fitness. I don’t believe that women will always want to watch the extreme and intensity in the show, so that is why I predict that Spike TV is especially made for men.
As I am going to watch Spike TV throughout the day, I’m going to keep an eye out for what kind of products it advertises throughout the day; from morning till night. The main ingredients that are presented on this show’s advertisement are energy drinks, exercise equipment, sports game previews, medicine, beer and “manly food.” There is a reason why these are presented, because they know this is what manly men crave, and will only thing they will be better if they get these products. I figure that in the morning the commercials will present things about being healthy and eating right. This is because when you’re getting ready in the morning and watching the commercial it will try to change your mind and be “that way.” Then in the afternoon the commercials will be sports games previews on what time the games are and what sport is being played. Also there will be exercise equipment displayed. I believe this is put out so the men will want to buy that product and bring it home so they can be like the men on the Spike TV show. Everyone these days strive to be better then others. Then finally at night when the games and fights are being played, they commercials throughout the show will present beer (which always helps the game be better). As the men watch their fights and drink their beer they got, their young ones might be sick, so medicine Ad’s will be put on. Not only for their young ones, the men will want to wake up feeling great and strong.
So I plan on surveying both men and women on this project to see if women really do know much about the Spike TV channel; and if they do, what shows do they know of? Maybe I will be proven wrong at some point. I only predict this because since I sit at home and always have this show on TV; because of my dad, I feel like I’m the only female that really knows about this channel. I know many of my female friends have no clue what the show is or have any idea of it.
So for the whole point of this project, my point is to prove that Spike TV is a man show that is filled with sports, action, fitness and comedy. Everything on the show is considered, “macho.” A way to prove this is by the commercials that are presented throughout the day, from morning until night. Once I survey the population, I will know my true honest answers to my hypothesis. I hope to not be proven wrong that Spike TV is a man related show that is filled with men related products and commercials!
As I was thinking about thinking about an idea for this project, the first thing that came to me was Advertisement; but advertisement on the Spike Channel. The Ad’s on the channel are all about your health and fitness. This channel is all about sports, fitness and comedy. Since my dad watches Spike TV, every single night of the week, I figured this would be an interesting survey to try. I would also learn more about the channel. My whole point for this project is to see whether Spike TV is strictly a men’s or women’s TV show. In my opinion, I believe Spike is an all Men’s show put on the cable.
The very first thing I want to prove out of the whole project is whether this channel is an all men’s TV show, or it’s a mix. I only believe that this channel is made for men because of what is aired on it. Spike TV has extreme shows, with a lot of action and fighting. For example the top show on Spike TV is UFC. Not only is UFC extreme with a lot of blood and action, it also provides tons and tons of Ad’s in the ring where the men fight. These Ad’s are for your health and fitness. I don’t believe that women will always want to watch the extreme and intensity in the show, so that is why I predict that Spike TV is especially made for men.
As I am going to watch Spike TV throughout the day, I’m going to keep an eye out for what kind of products it advertises throughout the day; from morning till night. The main ingredients that are presented on this show’s advertisement are energy drinks, exercise equipment, sports game previews, medicine, beer and “manly food.” There is a reason why these are presented, because they know this is what manly men crave, and will only thing they will be better if they get these products. I figure that in the morning the commercials will present things about being healthy and eating right. This is because when you’re getting ready in the morning and watching the commercial it will try to change your mind and be “that way.” Then in the afternoon the commercials will be sports games previews on what time the games are and what sport is being played. Also there will be exercise equipment displayed. I believe this is put out so the men will want to buy that product and bring it home so they can be like the men on the Spike TV show. Everyone these days strive to be better then others. Then finally at night when the games and fights are being played, they commercials throughout the show will present beer (which always helps the game be better). As the men watch their fights and drink their beer they got, their young ones might be sick, so medicine Ad’s will be put on. Not only for their young ones, the men will want to wake up feeling great and strong.
So I plan on surveying both men and women on this project to see if women really do know much about the Spike TV channel; and if they do, what shows do they know of? Maybe I will be proven wrong at some point. I only predict this because since I sit at home and always have this show on TV; because of my dad, I feel like I’m the only female that really knows about this channel. I know many of my female friends have no clue what the show is or have any idea of it.
So for the whole point of this project, my point is to prove that Spike TV is a man show that is filled with sports, action, fitness and comedy. Everything on the show is considered, “macho.” A way to prove this is by the commercials that are presented throughout the day, from morning until night. Once I survey the population, I will know my true honest answers to my hypothesis. I hope to not be proven wrong that Spike TV is a man related show that is filled with men related products and commercials!
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Do Video Games Encourage Violent Behavior?
The real question is, Do Violent Games Encourage Violent Behavior? Both Craig Anderson and Henry Jenkins argued this topic. Anderson believes that the games do put us into a violent act, and Jenkins highly disagrees. Parents of the gamers and critics believe that games are a unique form of entertainment that warrants special consideration put into place. Since the majority of the games are played alone, the creates the users interactions with the game to be interactive and directed. Many don't really put much attention on how the games affect adults, its more directed to how teens and adolescents are affected. I believe they shouldn't target a certain group, only because everyone is affect in the same way with the violence in the game. Anderson conclude her results from research and Jenkins concluded his answers from studies and professionals.
Let's start with Anderson's argument; who is an expert on the effects of violence in television and film. She argued strictly for yes, video games do encourage violent behavior. She explains that upon her research she has done and comes to believe that the game prompt young people towards even more aggression and violence then other media content. Upon her research she has found varies of proof which has been studied for 40 plus years. There are four types of media violence; laboratory experiment, field experiment, cross sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies. The average effect sizes for experimental studies and correlation studies appear to be comparable between the two. One thing that is wrong is that some games actually reward someone if they have a completed kill. To my beliefs, this is just wrong. In real life, they are only going to be successful in the kill, but wont get anything in return. Some studies show that the high level video games expose links to more violent behavior in school and social life. This has been an increase, even with unrealistic games. I think since it's unrealistic, no one should be offended by it, but they still do. Even people are more addicted to games then they are to tobacco. This is because games make people feel positive and good about themselves.
On the other hand, Henry Jenkins highly disagrees. He argues that the primary audience aren't just children, and the violence is not increasing in society. Even though he has some sort of proof of this, i still disagree very much. He is concerned about the isolation, desensitization, and violence gets overblown. In the US, 90% of the gamers are boys, and only 40% are women. The rate of the juvenile violent crimes is at 30 years times low. This doesn't mean anything thought because this is the result they collected awhile back. The new generation is a whole different thing. The US Surgeon states that 'the way they grow up is what effects them and the way they were raised, not the media." I sort of agree with this statement some what only because if you were raised in a violent family, that's is what you are taught and how your going to be. So you only do what you were taught. Because of this, the result are that 83% of the game purchases are made of underage children. So the parents are just letting their children play this. There is proof right there. Even though the games are violent, it also can enhance your learning and social skills on a way thinks Jenkins. 60% of the gamers play with others and friends. 33% play with their siblings and 25% play with their spouses. The numbers can go on and on. Even though men are huge on video games, women outnumbered men on web-based games. Women usage rate went up when the game Sim's came out; women liked the fact they can control what the house looks like and how the family was ran. Either way these games have a way for people to show and express their feelings and impulse.
I believe even though this controversy can go on and on, violent play always will lead to more violent play. It's just something you can change. These games get you so addicted to them, that when you go out and social you automatically do something without realizing it. It is as almost as if you are a robot; your brain can't control you. Your body has. This type of controversy with violent video games has been taken into consideration whether a media industry can control access information to questionable material through the rating system. I believe that the games do have some kind of impact on you, but on the other hand you can control yourself. But that isn't always the case. Since I'm not a gamer, i couldn't say. I have experience in my past that a lot of people are addicted. Either way video games will always be a part of television, film and recorded music.
Let's start with Anderson's argument; who is an expert on the effects of violence in television and film. She argued strictly for yes, video games do encourage violent behavior. She explains that upon her research she has done and comes to believe that the game prompt young people towards even more aggression and violence then other media content. Upon her research she has found varies of proof which has been studied for 40 plus years. There are four types of media violence; laboratory experiment, field experiment, cross sectional correlation studies, and longitudinal studies. The average effect sizes for experimental studies and correlation studies appear to be comparable between the two. One thing that is wrong is that some games actually reward someone if they have a completed kill. To my beliefs, this is just wrong. In real life, they are only going to be successful in the kill, but wont get anything in return. Some studies show that the high level video games expose links to more violent behavior in school and social life. This has been an increase, even with unrealistic games. I think since it's unrealistic, no one should be offended by it, but they still do. Even people are more addicted to games then they are to tobacco. This is because games make people feel positive and good about themselves.
On the other hand, Henry Jenkins highly disagrees. He argues that the primary audience aren't just children, and the violence is not increasing in society. Even though he has some sort of proof of this, i still disagree very much. He is concerned about the isolation, desensitization, and violence gets overblown. In the US, 90% of the gamers are boys, and only 40% are women. The rate of the juvenile violent crimes is at 30 years times low. This doesn't mean anything thought because this is the result they collected awhile back. The new generation is a whole different thing. The US Surgeon states that 'the way they grow up is what effects them and the way they were raised, not the media." I sort of agree with this statement some what only because if you were raised in a violent family, that's is what you are taught and how your going to be. So you only do what you were taught. Because of this, the result are that 83% of the game purchases are made of underage children. So the parents are just letting their children play this. There is proof right there. Even though the games are violent, it also can enhance your learning and social skills on a way thinks Jenkins. 60% of the gamers play with others and friends. 33% play with their siblings and 25% play with their spouses. The numbers can go on and on. Even though men are huge on video games, women outnumbered men on web-based games. Women usage rate went up when the game Sim's came out; women liked the fact they can control what the house looks like and how the family was ran. Either way these games have a way for people to show and express their feelings and impulse.
I believe even though this controversy can go on and on, violent play always will lead to more violent play. It's just something you can change. These games get you so addicted to them, that when you go out and social you automatically do something without realizing it. It is as almost as if you are a robot; your brain can't control you. Your body has. This type of controversy with violent video games has been taken into consideration whether a media industry can control access information to questionable material through the rating system. I believe that the games do have some kind of impact on you, but on the other hand you can control yourself. But that isn't always the case. Since I'm not a gamer, i couldn't say. I have experience in my past that a lot of people are addicted. Either way video games will always be a part of television, film and recorded music.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Is Advertising Good for Society?
Once advertisement was used as a way to keep the cost for newspaper down. But not for long. As newspapers expanded, advertisement wasn't in the need for help anymore, so then they simply were doing their job just placing an ad in the Newspaper. This is called commercial media, where it is a system for delivering audience to advertise their stuff. This whole point was that the company's trying to sell their products were using the audience as their "market." They basically reflect the orientation in where we stand in the current media system, and work from there.
Advertising is a very useful to people and the information that does the job, advertising, helps the consumers make better decisions on what they are buying, stated John Calfee. Calfee is a former U.S. Trade Commission economist, and strongly agrees with his position, saying that there can't be any negative criticism that beats his. He argues that the Ad's help and benefit the consumer on what the right product is to buy. Advertising is a tool for communicating information and shaping markets in any way possible. This is where persuasive comes in, this provides an immense amount of information that benefits to primary parties. An example would be that eating a lot of Fiber, can reduce the amount of chances to get cancer. So here comes Kellogg, advertising that their article is high in fiber; this makes more people want their cereal, for their own health. Not only can Ad's be good, but they can also be bad. But the whole point is to sell the product. Someone is always trying to change someone else's mind, that the product is better then another. I believe without the use of advertising, no one would know from right and wrong; where to fit in.
On the other hand, Dinyar Godreg highly disagrees. This person believes that advertising doesn't tell us anything. Where i disagree, with out the Ad, we wouldn't know anything about the product and what makes it so good or bad. But Godreg states that Ad's don't tell us anything "new." We the audience should already know about the product, and know from our common senses, but this isn't always true. I do agree with Godreg that us Americans consume way more then we actually need; but ad's only want and make us come back for it. This pretty much permeates our lifestyles as whole. Either way ad's don't really worry about the product it's self, but they try to relate and make a connection to the consumer or buyers. They work with your image, lifestyle, dreams, and emotions. Once the Ad clicks into your emotions, your done. It has done the trick. Human beings only care about their image, and their image only. This is our everything, so if i ad can make a connection and make you look even "better," your going to want. Godreg once said, all the effort can fail or succeed. This portrays our lifestyles, and were are viewed as "apolitical."
But in the end, we all know with out the use of Advertising, nothing would be sold. Not only are ad's helping out their sellers, they are also reducing prices and helping handle money with Newspaper Company's. The Ad industry has responded to many criticism's in many ways, nothing can change that. Everyone will have different views, but in the last line, Ad's wont change or they wont leave. Since technology is being more and more used, Ad's will to. Ad's will be placed as pop up ads, banners, and will promise easy consumption in sites. This all makes it complicated. Both authors came to conclusion that Advertisement will always infiltrate society on many levels, not just one.
Advertising is a very useful to people and the information that does the job, advertising, helps the consumers make better decisions on what they are buying, stated John Calfee. Calfee is a former U.S. Trade Commission economist, and strongly agrees with his position, saying that there can't be any negative criticism that beats his. He argues that the Ad's help and benefit the consumer on what the right product is to buy. Advertising is a tool for communicating information and shaping markets in any way possible. This is where persuasive comes in, this provides an immense amount of information that benefits to primary parties. An example would be that eating a lot of Fiber, can reduce the amount of chances to get cancer. So here comes Kellogg, advertising that their article is high in fiber; this makes more people want their cereal, for their own health. Not only can Ad's be good, but they can also be bad. But the whole point is to sell the product. Someone is always trying to change someone else's mind, that the product is better then another. I believe without the use of advertising, no one would know from right and wrong; where to fit in.
On the other hand, Dinyar Godreg highly disagrees. This person believes that advertising doesn't tell us anything. Where i disagree, with out the Ad, we wouldn't know anything about the product and what makes it so good or bad. But Godreg states that Ad's don't tell us anything "new." We the audience should already know about the product, and know from our common senses, but this isn't always true. I do agree with Godreg that us Americans consume way more then we actually need; but ad's only want and make us come back for it. This pretty much permeates our lifestyles as whole. Either way ad's don't really worry about the product it's self, but they try to relate and make a connection to the consumer or buyers. They work with your image, lifestyle, dreams, and emotions. Once the Ad clicks into your emotions, your done. It has done the trick. Human beings only care about their image, and their image only. This is our everything, so if i ad can make a connection and make you look even "better," your going to want. Godreg once said, all the effort can fail or succeed. This portrays our lifestyles, and were are viewed as "apolitical."
But in the end, we all know with out the use of Advertising, nothing would be sold. Not only are ad's helping out their sellers, they are also reducing prices and helping handle money with Newspaper Company's. The Ad industry has responded to many criticism's in many ways, nothing can change that. Everyone will have different views, but in the last line, Ad's wont change or they wont leave. Since technology is being more and more used, Ad's will to. Ad's will be placed as pop up ads, banners, and will promise easy consumption in sites. This all makes it complicated. Both authors came to conclusion that Advertisement will always infiltrate society on many levels, not just one.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)