Thursday, April 7, 2011
Olivias group
one must be inventor to read well” · Instead of absorbing what’s on the sheet, come up with your own ideas · Doing what u feel is right · Looking at it in a diff. point of view · Not to be a mouther of words · Reading takes more than one skill · Creativity · Originality · Dig deeper to create more connections, being aware!
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Non Stop News
“Everything is rushed. Annita Dunn says, When journalists call you to discuss a story, it’s not because they’re interested in having a discussion. They’re interested in a response. And the need to file five times a day encourages this. Instead of seeking context or disputing a claim, reporters often simply get two opposing quotes and file a “He said story”. David Axelrod, who for years was a reporter for the Chicago tribune, says, there are some really good journalists there, really superb ones. But the volume of materiel they have to produce just doesn’t leave a whole lot of time for reflection”
“Obama’s campaign also had a superior grasp of new media. By October of 2008, its Internet arm had compiled an e-mail list of thirteen million supporters about twenty percent of the total number of votes we would need to win.”
This passage is significant because it emphasizes the professional way journalists deal with their tasks as reporters. As it says, they don’t seek context or dispute claims, they simply get two opposing quotes and file a “He said story”. I find this way of reporting to be much more subjective and honest. Also Obama’s campaign knowledge about new media definitely enhances his chances of getting more and more support
“Obama’s campaign also had a superior grasp of new media. By October of 2008, its Internet arm had compiled an e-mail list of thirteen million supporters about twenty percent of the total number of votes we would need to win.”
This passage is significant because it emphasizes the professional way journalists deal with their tasks as reporters. As it says, they don’t seek context or dispute claims, they simply get two opposing quotes and file a “He said story”. I find this way of reporting to be much more subjective and honest. Also Obama’s campaign knowledge about new media definitely enhances his chances of getting more and more support
1. Passage: “…Phillips says. “Our policy people are going on the Web and they are asked very difficult questions by the public. It’s unclear to me whether the press is actually covering that.” What the press is paying attention to, Anita Dunn says, is cable and blog attacks on the Obama Administration…She marvels at an often overlooked impact of the internet: “The effect on people who cover the White House is extraordinary. The ability for online to drive stories into the mainstream media is significant.” Once a story gains traction, she says, the Administration must respond quickly or “rumors become facts.”
2. In this Article there is a lot of talk about the media and presidency. Both can affect one another a great deal and sometimes not in a positive way. There is always going to be Media about politics and our president, it’s something we will never escape and it’s a good thing too. We want to know about what’s going on with the leader of our country and we have that right, but like this passage says, the information can be manipulated and things that are untrue and become real. There are times when the news and media isn’t focusing on the right thing. We can get so wrapped up in little scandals that are more involved with personal life’s then with subject that are more directly affecting us.
3. And 4. In this passage alone there isn’t much direct evidence, but it’s something that most people can relate with. This isn’t something that happens in just a political view, it happens in most media. People feed off of gossip and exciting things that happen to individuals, usually the more negative the more interested people are. Coming from Anita Dunn, Obama’s chief communications officer, I believe that this is something that is very common in the White House. Someone with such a huge responsibility wouldn’t be talking about this if it wasn’t affective. Most of us now get our information and news on the internet so we know how it works, but anyone can put what is now called “news” on the internet, so it’s tricky to separate what’s false from fact.
2. In this Article there is a lot of talk about the media and presidency. Both can affect one another a great deal and sometimes not in a positive way. There is always going to be Media about politics and our president, it’s something we will never escape and it’s a good thing too. We want to know about what’s going on with the leader of our country and we have that right, but like this passage says, the information can be manipulated and things that are untrue and become real. There are times when the news and media isn’t focusing on the right thing. We can get so wrapped up in little scandals that are more involved with personal life’s then with subject that are more directly affecting us.
3. And 4. In this passage alone there isn’t much direct evidence, but it’s something that most people can relate with. This isn’t something that happens in just a political view, it happens in most media. People feed off of gossip and exciting things that happen to individuals, usually the more negative the more interested people are. Coming from Anita Dunn, Obama’s chief communications officer, I believe that this is something that is very common in the White House. Someone with such a huge responsibility wouldn’t be talking about this if it wasn’t affective. Most of us now get our information and news on the internet so we know how it works, but anyone can put what is now called “news” on the internet, so it’s tricky to separate what’s false from fact.
Mental Influence
1. “Glenn beck of Fox News, mounted an assault on Van Jones a White House Environmental advisor, who, in 2004 signed a petition saying that the Bush administration may have well been the cause for 9/11 to happen perhaps a pretext
for war.”
2. In this part of the text he refers to cable news influence on forty percent of America, and talking about the statistics of partisan bias.
3. It somehow seems that 9/11 is some democrat/republican issue that it has nothing to do with truth and nothing to do with lies, but conflict, which stirs up between the parties, as if somehow it had something to do with politics and not at all with money, drugs, and resources, overall an economic issue not even a religious one. Things that stand out are “mounting assault”, “9/11”, and “pretext for war”. On both sides there are people who believe it happened due to our government in the variety of ways this country seem to be involved, and then there are those that don’t who’s intention is either to influence other opinion for the sake of taking more power, or those who are blinded by authority and the “official” story, which is the real conspiracy theory?
4. The media on both sides seem to be funded by groups with special interests which lure the truth farther away. For this article, I don’t quite understand why it was added in the claim, it is one of those just over the surface issues that people don’t seem to like talking about, just mentioning, and have somebody else think about which no one seems to do. It frustrates me the amount of suggestive thinking, that changes perspectives there are, how the people seem to be sheep following the shepherd to the slaughter house, and blind in conformity.
Jonah Laugharn
1. “Glenn beck of Fox News, mounted an assault on Van Jones a White House Environmental advisor, who, in 2004 signed a petition saying that the Bush administration may have well been the cause for 9/11 to happen perhaps a pretext
for war.”
2. In this part of the text he refers to cable news influence on forty percent of America, and talking about the statistics of partisan bias.
3. It somehow seems that 9/11 is some democrat/republican issue that it has nothing to do with truth and nothing to do with lies, but conflict, which stirs up between the parties, as if somehow it had something to do with politics and not at all with money, drugs, and resources, overall an economic issue not even a religious one. Things that stand out are “mounting assault”, “9/11”, and “pretext for war”. On both sides there are people who believe it happened due to our government in the variety of ways this country seem to be involved, and then there are those that don’t who’s intention is either to influence other opinion for the sake of taking more power, or those who are blinded by authority and the “official” story, which is the real conspiracy theory?
4. The media on both sides seem to be funded by groups with special interests which lure the truth farther away. For this article, I don’t quite understand why it was added in the claim, it is one of those just over the surface issues that people don’t seem to like talking about, just mentioning, and have somebody else think about which no one seems to do. It frustrates me the amount of suggestive thinking, that changes perspectives there are, how the people seem to be sheep following the shepherd to the slaughter house, and blind in conformity.
Jonah Laugharn
Non-stop News
“This difference, of course, is a result of the technological transformation of the media and the way that transformation has influenced how the press goes about its work.”
2. This passage is coming after Ken Auletta describes the amount of times President Obama has been on the cover of magazines and how much coverage in the media he actually gets. He goes onto describe when George W. Bush was President there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no YouTube. Auletta states, from between 2006 and 2008, daily online use jumped by a third. Which meant that one-quarter of Americans were getting the news online. So, while the news cycle gets shorter this gives reporters the urge to write an article then move onto the next, without looking into the issues at hand. Leaving the issue an issue and not trying to find ways to solve any of them.
3. This is interesting to me because we are so wrapped up in finding out new things, we aren’t looking at what is really important. In the article Auletta talks about how interested we are with the First Family, we care about what their kids are up to and things like that and we shouldn’t. The littlest new things are exciting to us and it’s kind of ridiculous.
4. The media is controlling the information we see and having a huge impact on us. It is causing us to let any sort of information go in one ear and out the other due to the constant updates on news articles and the internet. Not giving us time to process things like we need too.
2. This passage is coming after Ken Auletta describes the amount of times President Obama has been on the cover of magazines and how much coverage in the media he actually gets. He goes onto describe when George W. Bush was President there was no Facebook, no Twitter, no YouTube. Auletta states, from between 2006 and 2008, daily online use jumped by a third. Which meant that one-quarter of Americans were getting the news online. So, while the news cycle gets shorter this gives reporters the urge to write an article then move onto the next, without looking into the issues at hand. Leaving the issue an issue and not trying to find ways to solve any of them.
3. This is interesting to me because we are so wrapped up in finding out new things, we aren’t looking at what is really important. In the article Auletta talks about how interested we are with the First Family, we care about what their kids are up to and things like that and we shouldn’t. The littlest new things are exciting to us and it’s kind of ridiculous.
4. The media is controlling the information we see and having a huge impact on us. It is causing us to let any sort of information go in one ear and out the other due to the constant updates on news articles and the internet. Not giving us time to process things like we need too.
News Post
The transformation in media technology has also altered government communications strategy. “The biggest White House press frustration is that nothing can drive a news cycle anymore,” Mark McKinnon, the media adviser, said. “In the old days, you could say, ‘We’d like October to be about the environment.’” Today, a vicious news cycle swallows most white house strategies. When the Berlin Wall went up, in 1961, President Kennedy was on vacation. “For six days, no one pressed him hard for a reaction,” Beschloss said. “If that happened now, President Obama would have three seconds.” While Obama was on vacation over Christmas in Hawaii, for three days he failed to respond to the foiled terrorist plot to blow up an American airliner. In his absence, Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, made a disastrous appearance in which she claimed that “the system worked.” Both she and Obama were savagely criticized.
Overall this passage is basically saying that with the new technological advancements in media we, United States citizens, demand immediate response and new. After Pres Obama had someone fill in for his place for a speech, during a very serious and largely televised event, and was criticized for the fact it wasn’t him responding. Auletta shows how this new attitude has changed, from previous attitudes, by using a similar situation with a different outcome as an example. In 1961 Pres Kennedy failed to make appearance about the Berlin Wall and no crap was thrown his way. She tries to show that because of the way media is beginning to set up it has changed our attitude about immediate news.
The two biggest words that stuck out to me were “savagely criticized” because savage is a pretty strong word. Some other words are “vicious” and “swallows” when she talks about this new news cycle. The use of these words shows the severity of how we need instant news.
Basically this passage discusses how the new media has affected to the way the government has to deal with media. To the overall article it shows how we have had an attitude shift due to this new media (due to technology.)
Overall this passage is basically saying that with the new technological advancements in media we, United States citizens, demand immediate response and new. After Pres Obama had someone fill in for his place for a speech, during a very serious and largely televised event, and was criticized for the fact it wasn’t him responding. Auletta shows how this new attitude has changed, from previous attitudes, by using a similar situation with a different outcome as an example. In 1961 Pres Kennedy failed to make appearance about the Berlin Wall and no crap was thrown his way. She tries to show that because of the way media is beginning to set up it has changed our attitude about immediate news.
The two biggest words that stuck out to me were “savagely criticized” because savage is a pretty strong word. Some other words are “vicious” and “swallows” when she talks about this new news cycle. The use of these words shows the severity of how we need instant news.
Basically this passage discusses how the new media has affected to the way the government has to deal with media. To the overall article it shows how we have had an attitude shift due to this new media (due to technology.)
nonstop news
“When Obama was running for the Senate in Illinois in 2004, his two main opponents in both parties were destroyed by the release of their respective divorce records; Obama won the primary easily and ended up running in the general election against Alan Keyes, a Republican carpetbagger who came to Illinois to talk about abortion and not much more.”
This passage isn’t particularly important in the scheme of the article. It was intended to explain the history of Obama’s political career in his run-up to his presidency, and how he was very adverse to criticism from the media in the beginning. The reason why it interested me was because of the conclusions we might draw about a democratic process that allowed those events to potentially determine a President from a non-President. If those other candidates had not been ruined by their divorce records, Obama might still be a member of Congress. I’m sure that this sort of ruining your opponents career over the skeletons in his closet mindset has been going on since the beginning of the country, but I think that the nature of this process that weeds out candidates in such a manner is possibly being affected by the same changes ongoing in the media that Auletta was talking about. The proliferation of this un-researched quick-story journalism that is more pro-conflict biased, is probably making our democratic process also even more susceptible to this demagogic sort of mentality.
This passage isn’t particularly important in the scheme of the article. It was intended to explain the history of Obama’s political career in his run-up to his presidency, and how he was very adverse to criticism from the media in the beginning. The reason why it interested me was because of the conclusions we might draw about a democratic process that allowed those events to potentially determine a President from a non-President. If those other candidates had not been ruined by their divorce records, Obama might still be a member of Congress. I’m sure that this sort of ruining your opponents career over the skeletons in his closet mindset has been going on since the beginning of the country, but I think that the nature of this process that weeds out candidates in such a manner is possibly being affected by the same changes ongoing in the media that Auletta was talking about. The proliferation of this un-researched quick-story journalism that is more pro-conflict biased, is probably making our democratic process also even more susceptible to this demagogic sort of mentality.
Response to Non-Stop News.
1.The transformation in the media technology has also altered government communications strategy. “The biggest White House press frustration is that nothing can drive a news cycle anymore,” Mark Mckinnon, The media advisor, said. “In the old days, you could say ‘we’d like October to be about the environment.’” Today, a vicious news cycle swallows more White House strategies. When the Berlin Wall went up, in 1961, President Kennedy was on vacation. “For six days, no one pressed him hard for a reaction,” Beschloss said. “If that happened now, President Obama would have three seconds.” While Obama was on vacation over Christmas in Hawaii, he failed to respond to the foiled terrorist plot to blow up an American airliner. In his absence, Janet Napoliano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, made a disastrous appearance in which she claimed that “the system worked.” Both she and Obama were savagely criticized.
2.It comes from the 5th page into the text. Multiple people are saying that the situation of being President has drastically changed compared to 50 years ago. You can’t leave, you cannot go on vacation and not answer questions. With all the technology we have, the president is required to respond to every issue right away.
3.Words that seem important- vicious news cycle, because it is true that the news is very different than it used to be. We have information instantaneously! This portrays the fact that we have information right away as a negative thing, but what about the situation that just happened in Egypt? If we weren’t able to get information right away, the leader would not have been overthrown.
4.I chose this passage because it shows how in demand Obama is, and how we demand information right away now. I think it nicely summarizes the whole idea of the article- how much pressure Obama is under and how fast paced the media has become.
2.It comes from the 5th page into the text. Multiple people are saying that the situation of being President has drastically changed compared to 50 years ago. You can’t leave, you cannot go on vacation and not answer questions. With all the technology we have, the president is required to respond to every issue right away.
3.Words that seem important- vicious news cycle, because it is true that the news is very different than it used to be. We have information instantaneously! This portrays the fact that we have information right away as a negative thing, but what about the situation that just happened in Egypt? If we weren’t able to get information right away, the leader would not have been overthrown.
4.I chose this passage because it shows how in demand Obama is, and how we demand information right away now. I think it nicely summarizes the whole idea of the article- how much pressure Obama is under and how fast paced the media has become.
Reflection on "Non-Stop News"
“When do you have time to sort through data and information and do your own research…we are hostages to the non-stop, never-ending, file it now, get it on the web, get in on the radio, get it on the TV media environment”. This passage from the article “Non-Stop News” by Ken Auletta is very interesting. It sums up a lot of what Auletta is trying to convey in his article. This particular passage Auletta is quoting a reporter, Peter Baker. In his passage Baker talks a lot about the presidents and how our views of them can change through the media. Baker’s passage in Auletta’s article is linking how the continuous feature of the news is distorting those thoughts. With articles and more desire to publish then to get straight facts this new media can be inaccurate or only revealing certain parts of the story.
In this passage, I think the mayor word is “non-stop” because with technology today that’s really how our society works. It is constant and instant, not just with news but with everything. Even looking at fast food industries they thrive because that is what is desired constant and instant. When I look at fast food I know it’s not good for me, it’s not full of nutrition and it doesn’t fill me up, I’ll be hungry again soon after I eat it. It’s quick to get so therefore that is why I will choose it over making something at home. If I look at news in the same way, it is not filling; it leaves out vital pieces of the story. In the long run if all society wants is the quick and easy story not digging deep into the whole picture we are always going to be hungry for more.
In this passage, I think the mayor word is “non-stop” because with technology today that’s really how our society works. It is constant and instant, not just with news but with everything. Even looking at fast food industries they thrive because that is what is desired constant and instant. When I look at fast food I know it’s not good for me, it’s not full of nutrition and it doesn’t fill me up, I’ll be hungry again soon after I eat it. It’s quick to get so therefore that is why I will choose it over making something at home. If I look at news in the same way, it is not filling; it leaves out vital pieces of the story. In the long run if all society wants is the quick and easy story not digging deep into the whole picture we are always going to be hungry for more.
In the article Non Stop News by Ken Auletta he quotes Peter Baker a White House correspondent for the Times saying: “When do you have time to call experts? When do you have time to sort through data and information and do your own research? Even with a well-staffed news organization, we are hostages to the non-stop, never-ending file-it-now, get-on-the Web, get-on the radio, get-on-the TV media environment.” He uses this quote after discussing the way news and the way news is covered has changed with modern technology. Everything now moves at a faster pace. There is no time to spend on any one piece of news following up on leads or even doing too much research. Let alone time for people to reflect upon the news items. No in depth thinking just a quick skim over the top. He compares reporters to hostages in this new way media news is covered. Which I find to be a fascinating way to make this claim because that’s probably how a lot of reporters are feeling now. A hostage situation would be fast paced and high intensity just like the news today seems. Hear about it and jump into the race to be the first to cover it in some media form. And now traditional news is few and far between todays more modern news where celebrities actions are right up there with important things happening in the world. So not only is the way the news is covered changing but also the kind of news that is being covered has changed.
Non-Stop News
Passage:
“Yet he knows that in some ways he and his colleagues are trapped. “We are, collectively, much like eight-year-olds chasing a soccer ball”. He says. “Instead of finding ways of creating fresh, original, high-impact journalism, we’re way too eager to chase the same story everyone else is chasing, which is too often the easy story and too often the simplistic and too often the story that misses what’s going on”. Like most journalists, he does not think much will change, no matter how many speeches Obama makes.”
This is Ken Auletta concluding paragraph to his essay .In this passage Ken Auletta is commenting on what Peter Baker has to say about Obamas criticism of the media. When Baker talks about high-impact journalism he is referring to what he thinks is good journalism, ideas that are fresh and original. Ideas that will make a real impact on the people watching the news, rather than just a bunch of gossip, and opinions.
I think this passage shows how journalism has evolved because of the internet. There is so much going on in the world today that anyone can find the most controversial articles on the web, and we can share them with everybody else that we know. Usually via Facebook, Twitter or any other social media site. Many times these controversial articles that we all love to hear about may not be the most important ones. Sometimes the most important stories on the news are the ones that don’t stand out as much until you investigate them.
“Yet he knows that in some ways he and his colleagues are trapped. “We are, collectively, much like eight-year-olds chasing a soccer ball”. He says. “Instead of finding ways of creating fresh, original, high-impact journalism, we’re way too eager to chase the same story everyone else is chasing, which is too often the easy story and too often the simplistic and too often the story that misses what’s going on”. Like most journalists, he does not think much will change, no matter how many speeches Obama makes.”
This is Ken Auletta concluding paragraph to his essay .In this passage Ken Auletta is commenting on what Peter Baker has to say about Obamas criticism of the media. When Baker talks about high-impact journalism he is referring to what he thinks is good journalism, ideas that are fresh and original. Ideas that will make a real impact on the people watching the news, rather than just a bunch of gossip, and opinions.
I think this passage shows how journalism has evolved because of the internet. There is so much going on in the world today that anyone can find the most controversial articles on the web, and we can share them with everybody else that we know. Usually via Facebook, Twitter or any other social media site. Many times these controversial articles that we all love to hear about may not be the most important ones. Sometimes the most important stories on the news are the ones that don’t stand out as much until you investigate them.
THE NEWS!
1.
“Peter Baker says that a reporter covering his beat ten years ago had ‘the luxury of writing for the next day’s newspaper. He had atleast a few hours to call people, access information, to provide context. Today, as much as you want to do that, by the time your deadline comes around you’ve already filed for the web’—often more than once. In between times, you’ve filed for radio, and appeared on TV, and maybe done a podcast or a blog. ‘When do you have time to call experts? When do you have time to sort through data and information and do your own research? Even with a well-staffed news organization, we are hostages to the non-stop, never-ending, file-it-now, get-on-the-Web, get-on-the-radio, get-on-TV media environment.’”
2. Obviously, Peter Baker is saying it, and speaking about the ongoing, fast paced web, and need to update our everyday lives and what is going on in the world.
3. My passage, seems important in the fact that it is contrasting to show how the news differs now from just a decade ago. I like the fact that he bring in that “a well-staffed news organization” because before I thought they were just talking about one person doing all that work, but then it shows that it takes many people to do those tasks.
4. I chose this passage because it seems to be really important in getting the full image of what the news room is like and how fast paced and together it really is.
“Peter Baker says that a reporter covering his beat ten years ago had ‘the luxury of writing for the next day’s newspaper. He had atleast a few hours to call people, access information, to provide context. Today, as much as you want to do that, by the time your deadline comes around you’ve already filed for the web’—often more than once. In between times, you’ve filed for radio, and appeared on TV, and maybe done a podcast or a blog. ‘When do you have time to call experts? When do you have time to sort through data and information and do your own research? Even with a well-staffed news organization, we are hostages to the non-stop, never-ending, file-it-now, get-on-the-Web, get-on-the-radio, get-on-TV media environment.’”
2. Obviously, Peter Baker is saying it, and speaking about the ongoing, fast paced web, and need to update our everyday lives and what is going on in the world.
3. My passage, seems important in the fact that it is contrasting to show how the news differs now from just a decade ago. I like the fact that he bring in that “a well-staffed news organization” because before I thought they were just talking about one person doing all that work, but then it shows that it takes many people to do those tasks.
4. I chose this passage because it seems to be really important in getting the full image of what the news room is like and how fast paced and together it really is.
non stop news
In the article “Non-Stop News” by Ken Auletta, he says, “The strategy rests on the belief that the President is an irresistible persuader. I don’t think there’s been a President since Kennedy whose ability to more issues and people through a speech had been compared.”
I think this is interesting because no one since Kennedy has had this much media attention, and was able to move people with this media. David Axclrod said this passage. Way back when Kennedy was changing the way America was going. Kennedy seemed from what my mom said, was making changes for the good, until he was assassinated. I believe Kennedy and Obama are good speakers. They both seemed to talk about various, big issues and used the media to address them.
I think this is interesting because no one since Kennedy has had this much media attention, and was able to move people with this media. David Axclrod said this passage. Way back when Kennedy was changing the way America was going. Kennedy seemed from what my mom said, was making changes for the good, until he was assassinated. I believe Kennedy and Obama are good speakers. They both seemed to talk about various, big issues and used the media to address them.
Non-stop news passage
“As media outlets multiply and it becomes easier to disseminate information on the Web and on cable, the news cycle is getting shorter- to the point that there is no pause, only the constancy of the Web and the endless argument of cable. This creates pressure to entertain or perish, which has fed the press’s dominant bias: not pro-liberal or pro-conservative but pro-conflict”
1) This passage comes when talking about the difference between when bush was exiting the white house and now. There was no facebook, twitter, youtube and information and news was sought through publications and television. It also comes during a talk about Obama the crazy amount of press he received, positive at that.
2) The first words that seemed interesting were “constancy of the Web and endless argument of cable” this is interesting because it was never present before the internet, now cable has to attempt to keep up with the internet. Another phrase which stuck out to me was “pro-conflict” which deals with how mass media presents information and attempts to entertain its viewers. Although the information might not be important to know, or even important at all, but if it deals with heads butting or some sort of conflict, people will eat it up.
3) I believe this passage is dealing with the changing face of the media and the impact that is having on presidential hopefuls during the campaign, as well as the entire White House once it’s in motion.
1) This passage comes when talking about the difference between when bush was exiting the white house and now. There was no facebook, twitter, youtube and information and news was sought through publications and television. It also comes during a talk about Obama the crazy amount of press he received, positive at that.
2) The first words that seemed interesting were “constancy of the Web and endless argument of cable” this is interesting because it was never present before the internet, now cable has to attempt to keep up with the internet. Another phrase which stuck out to me was “pro-conflict” which deals with how mass media presents information and attempts to entertain its viewers. Although the information might not be important to know, or even important at all, but if it deals with heads butting or some sort of conflict, people will eat it up.
3) I believe this passage is dealing with the changing face of the media and the impact that is having on presidential hopefuls during the campaign, as well as the entire White House once it’s in motion.
Non-stop news
“When journalists call you to discuss a story, it’s not because they’re interested in having a discussion. They’re interested in a response. And the need to file five times a day encourages this.”
This passage comes from Anita Dunn and is about how when a reporter calls the White House for a story they only want short little sound bites and not necessarily the context of the story. I think that it is interesting that some journalists are filing at least 5 times a day. With this kind of fast paced multiple filing it doesn’t leave journalist much time to do more research and find objective facts about their story. I think that this relates to the article as a whole because it is one of the repercussions of the fast paced 24 hr. news cycle.
This passage comes from Anita Dunn and is about how when a reporter calls the White House for a story they only want short little sound bites and not necessarily the context of the story. I think that it is interesting that some journalists are filing at least 5 times a day. With this kind of fast paced multiple filing it doesn’t leave journalist much time to do more research and find objective facts about their story. I think that this relates to the article as a whole because it is one of the repercussions of the fast paced 24 hr. news cycle.
Non-Stop News
In the article “Non-Stop News” by Ken Auletta, he says, “The strategy rests on the belief that the President is an irresistible persuader. I don’t think there’s been a President since Kennedy whose ability to more issues and people through a speech had been compared.”
I think this is interesting because no one since Kennedy has had this much media attention, and was able to move people with this media. David Axclrod said this passage. Way back when Kennedy was changing the way America was going. Kennedy seemed from what my mom said, was making changes for the good, until he was assassinated. I believe Kennedy and Obama are good speakers. They both seemed to talk about various big issues and used the media to address them.
I think this is interesting because no one since Kennedy has had this much media attention, and was able to move people with this media. David Axclrod said this passage. Way back when Kennedy was changing the way America was going. Kennedy seemed from what my mom said, was making changes for the good, until he was assassinated. I believe Kennedy and Obama are good speakers. They both seemed to talk about various big issues and used the media to address them.
Non Stop News Write
In the article “Non Stop News” by Ken Auletta he states that “During the campaign, Hillary Clinton and John McCain both complained that the press favored Obama; that sense of imbalance was a matter of bitter resentment. The pew research center’s project for excellence in journalism… found that McCain was the subject of negative stories twice as frequently as Obama.” I think that this passage is important and interesting to me because it shows how much power the media has, in this article it talked about how Obama used the media to get out his word to America. The part that was most interesting is how McCain had twice as many negative stories about him compared to Obama, I wonder if that is really because of how Obama used the media more than McCain, maybe Obama defended himself of the negative stories that the media put out there compared to McCain. Yet another meaning that someone could perceive from that scentence is that people just favored Obamas ideas then thinking that it was because he used the news to his advantage.
non-stop news
"Obama said that Cronkite, who was the face of CBS's primary newscast for nineteen years, had been regarded as 'the most trusted man' in Aamerica. But here is the thing, he said. That title wasnt bestowed upon him by a network."
this passage is in the second paragraph where he also proceeds to say that this spot was earned by Cronkite. "his belief that the American people were hungry for the truth" it is a little harder to find truth and honesty today from news anchors and sources. the most trusted man is interesting to me because some people may have a different view of this.
it means to me that people trusted this man because year after year he would share the news and be honest about it.
this passage is in the second paragraph where he also proceeds to say that this spot was earned by Cronkite. "his belief that the American people were hungry for the truth" it is a little harder to find truth and honesty today from news anchors and sources. the most trusted man is interesting to me because some people may have a different view of this.
it means to me that people trusted this man because year after year he would share the news and be honest about it.
“We are, collectively, much like eight year olds chasing a soccer ball… Instead of finding ways of creating fresh high-impact journalism we’re way too eager to chase the easy story and too often the simplistic story and too often the story that misses what’s going on.” – Peter Baker
Peter Baker is speaking to the readers about himself and other journalists about how they race towards the “hot” story in an effort to get their currently popular story out the fastest, and in doing this they neglect deeper more important issues.
I think the most important part of what Baker says is that they write about the story that “often misses what’s going on.” It’s interesting to think that the “News” we’re receiving isn’t necessary for our benefit, but is out there because it’s what we will read.
This passage implies that journalists are carelessly having a negative impact on the stories they’re submitting because it’s easy and it’s what works.
Peter Baker is speaking to the readers about himself and other journalists about how they race towards the “hot” story in an effort to get their currently popular story out the fastest, and in doing this they neglect deeper more important issues.
I think the most important part of what Baker says is that they write about the story that “often misses what’s going on.” It’s interesting to think that the “News” we’re receiving isn’t necessary for our benefit, but is out there because it’s what we will read.
This passage implies that journalists are carelessly having a negative impact on the stories they’re submitting because it’s easy and it’s what works.
Non- Stop News!!!
Passage:
The White House rejects the notion of overexposure. "It's an anachronistic debate, because of the fragmentation of the press," Dan Pfeiffer says. "With the Internet, with You Tube, with TiVo, with cable TV, people are selective viewers now. There may be a group of people in Washington who watch 'Nightline,' 'The daily Show,' 'Good Morning America,' and 'Meet the Press,' and they see obama five times. Most people in America see him once at most....People approach their news consumption the way they approach their iPOD: you download the songs you like and listen to them when you want to listen to them. That infects our strategy in where the president goes and where he doesn't.
This passage come from the third back page, the Second paragraph on the first line. In this passage Dan Pfeiffer is talking to everyone in general. He is saying how people now a days have access to pick and choose where and what they want to watch. SInce, there are many popular websites ou there, many of the cable shows are not been used to watch the news.
Its interesting how Dan Pfeiffer compares the way people approach the news and downloading music. Becuase he is making a literate simile between these too. As a hole, i think the passage in the story ties up together by, how the news has chnaged. How one topic of the news grabs the attention of others more than another topic. For example, how he talked about when Obama was running in the elections and how when he first came into office, how everyone was interested in what he did, what he wear, and his family.
The White House rejects the notion of overexposure. "It's an anachronistic debate, because of the fragmentation of the press," Dan Pfeiffer says. "With the Internet, with You Tube, with TiVo, with cable TV, people are selective viewers now. There may be a group of people in Washington who watch 'Nightline,' 'The daily Show,' 'Good Morning America,' and 'Meet the Press,' and they see obama five times. Most people in America see him once at most....People approach their news consumption the way they approach their iPOD: you download the songs you like and listen to them when you want to listen to them. That infects our strategy in where the president goes and where he doesn't.
This passage come from the third back page, the Second paragraph on the first line. In this passage Dan Pfeiffer is talking to everyone in general. He is saying how people now a days have access to pick and choose where and what they want to watch. SInce, there are many popular websites ou there, many of the cable shows are not been used to watch the news.
Its interesting how Dan Pfeiffer compares the way people approach the news and downloading music. Becuase he is making a literate simile between these too. As a hole, i think the passage in the story ties up together by, how the news has chnaged. How one topic of the news grabs the attention of others more than another topic. For example, how he talked about when Obama was running in the elections and how when he first came into office, how everyone was interested in what he did, what he wear, and his family.
NONSTOP NEWS RESPONSE
Quote from passage:
As media outlets multiply and it becomes easier to disseminate information on the web and on cable, the news cycle is getting shorter—to the point that there is no pause, only the constancy of the web and the endless argument of cable. This creates pressure to entertain or perish, which has fed the press’s dominant bias: not pro-liberal or pro-conservative but pro-conflict
Essentially Auletta is stating this idea with the belief that media is shifting into a new idea set as the viewers of news are changing as well. Auletta is stating that the media is now geared towards producing news tailored to the people. Tailored in the aspect of now entertainment and to the point reporting is becoming more frequent as people are now changing in that aspect as well. With people having easier acess internet and television, they can now choose what news source they choose to watch as well as choose the source they want to view that news. So the media now has to emphasise things that people find interesting which is pro-conflict issues. I can see this everyday as television is a box of negativity (as Maddi told me). All people care about is either sports, celeberties, or interesting conflicts around the world. Plus every media source has some bias because the news is tailoring themselves to the people which will cause this bias. This is a problem because people are now surrounded by a world of negativity as people are viewing media everyday. Plus if our media shows any kind of bias ideas then the people of subjected to that as well.
As media outlets multiply and it becomes easier to disseminate information on the web and on cable, the news cycle is getting shorter—to the point that there is no pause, only the constancy of the web and the endless argument of cable. This creates pressure to entertain or perish, which has fed the press’s dominant bias: not pro-liberal or pro-conservative but pro-conflict
Essentially Auletta is stating this idea with the belief that media is shifting into a new idea set as the viewers of news are changing as well. Auletta is stating that the media is now geared towards producing news tailored to the people. Tailored in the aspect of now entertainment and to the point reporting is becoming more frequent as people are now changing in that aspect as well. With people having easier acess internet and television, they can now choose what news source they choose to watch as well as choose the source they want to view that news. So the media now has to emphasise things that people find interesting which is pro-conflict issues. I can see this everyday as television is a box of negativity (as Maddi told me). All people care about is either sports, celeberties, or interesting conflicts around the world. Plus every media source has some bias because the news is tailoring themselves to the people which will cause this bias. This is a problem because people are now surrounded by a world of negativity as people are viewing media everyday. Plus if our media shows any kind of bias ideas then the people of subjected to that as well.
Analyzing "Non-Stop News"
1. “Chuck Todd knows that the White House press corps, along with the rest of the media, is more superficial than it once was. It has lost the power to arbitrate what matters, as the speed of gathering news shapes its content.”
2. Chuck Todd is acknowledging the fact of how the news has become surface level and not challenging as it used to be.
3. The word arbitrate is interesting because it adds more meaning than to just say that it is “decided.”
4. What this ultimately means is that the media will continue to not analyze and engage with the news that they are confronted with. This leads to there being less that the public knows about what is going on because while they are given the main part of the story they are not given the deeper meaning behind it leaving us with no means to reason with the news we are presented.
2. Chuck Todd is acknowledging the fact of how the news has become surface level and not challenging as it used to be.
3. The word arbitrate is interesting because it adds more meaning than to just say that it is “decided.”
4. What this ultimately means is that the media will continue to not analyze and engage with the news that they are confronted with. This leads to there being less that the public knows about what is going on because while they are given the main part of the story they are not given the deeper meaning behind it leaving us with no means to reason with the news we are presented.
Terrorizing Media
The transformation in media technology has also altered government communications strategy. “The biggest White House press frustration is that nothing can drive a news cycle anymore….In the old days, you could say, We’d like October to be about the environment…Today, a vicious news cycle swallows most White House Strategies”
This was said Mark McKinnon, the media adviser. As an example, he explained that when the Berlin Wall went up, in 1961, no one pressed hard for a reaction because President Kennedy was on vacation. Now, if Obama was to have an emergency while on vacation, he would have only 3 seconds and would be highly criticized for having someone else make a decision for him. To me this means the president would be punished for the one time he is allowed to be out with his family and take a break from all the stressful things that he has to put up with. It doesn’t seem fair. The media should back off and cut the poor guy some slack. As long as the issue has been taken care by someone, it shouldn't matter and the president should not have to be humiliated for it. The media is very well in charge of making people look bad and it is especially bad when the one person they are making look bad is the one person who is in charge of this country.
This was said Mark McKinnon, the media adviser. As an example, he explained that when the Berlin Wall went up, in 1961, no one pressed hard for a reaction because President Kennedy was on vacation. Now, if Obama was to have an emergency while on vacation, he would have only 3 seconds and would be highly criticized for having someone else make a decision for him. To me this means the president would be punished for the one time he is allowed to be out with his family and take a break from all the stressful things that he has to put up with. It doesn’t seem fair. The media should back off and cut the poor guy some slack. As long as the issue has been taken care by someone, it shouldn't matter and the president should not have to be humiliated for it. The media is very well in charge of making people look bad and it is especially bad when the one person they are making look bad is the one person who is in charge of this country.
Peter Baker says that a reporter covering his beat ten years ago hat "the luxury of writing for the next day's newspaper. he had a least a few hours to call people, to access information, to provide context. today, as much as you wnat to do that, by the time your deadlinge comes around you;ve already filed for the Web"-often more than once. in between times, your;ve filed for radio, and appeared on TB, and maybe done a podcast or a blog." when do you have to to call experts? when do you gave time to sort through data and information and do your own research? ven with a weel-staffed news organization, we are hostages to the non-stop, never-ending file -it-now, get-on-the-Web, get-on-the-radio, get-on-TV media environment"
This passage comes from the forth page underneith the poem "EarthQuake" Peter Baker is saying that because of this extremly quick twenty-four hour news cycle reporters are not doing the best of thier ability reporting the news because they simply don't have the time need to do the best job. He is elaborating that becasue of this news cycle all the information is mostly he said she said material and not so much of the reporter giving his compentary on the subject. My passage uses words such as luxury to express how the news was different ten years ago and from how it is now. He also uses words such as "file in now," "never-ending" to give you a sense of how the media is now. This passage helps explain the article as a whole and the issue at hand because this whole article is based on the media and before he gets into the article he wants the readers to understand how the media operates to further explain "the issue at hand."
This passage comes from the forth page underneith the poem "EarthQuake" Peter Baker is saying that because of this extremly quick twenty-four hour news cycle reporters are not doing the best of thier ability reporting the news because they simply don't have the time need to do the best job. He is elaborating that becasue of this news cycle all the information is mostly he said she said material and not so much of the reporter giving his compentary on the subject. My passage uses words such as luxury to express how the news was different ten years ago and from how it is now. He also uses words such as "file in now," "never-ending" to give you a sense of how the media is now. This passage helps explain the article as a whole and the issue at hand because this whole article is based on the media and before he gets into the article he wants the readers to understand how the media operates to further explain "the issue at hand."
Warping the Media
Obama's campaign also had a superior grasop of the new media. By october of 2008, its internet arm had compiled an e-mail list of thirteen million supporters- "about twenty percent of the total number of votes we would need to win," Plouffe said. Dan Pfeiffler, the White House communications director, says that Facebook, Twitter and YouTube allowed the campaign to "go around the filter" of the press- an obsession of the campaign that continues in the Obama White House. In the Clintion era, aides also talked about "going around" the White House press ; what they meant was getting an easy hour on "Larry King" or a soft interview with the local newspapers rather than submitting to a session with "60 Minutes" or the New York Times. The Obama campaign, with it's success online and with its mastery of a history-making narrative, was impatient with old media. One campaign reporter recalls a 2008 exchange in which Pfeiffler mockingly speculated that the Washington press corps might be rendered obsolete through the use of Presidential messages posted directly on Internet sites like YouTube. "It was basically taunting" the reporter says.
This passage comes from the second page of the article as the second paragraph. The quotes com from David Plouffe, Dan Pfleiffer and an undisclosed reporter.
The main thing that I take away from this section is that the Obama administration knew what it was doing and that they used that to its advantage. They knew that Social Networking was becoming popular and used that to its advantage. They knew what the media would possibly do and sought to side -step that.
The passage means that people who are most up to date are the ones that are going to be more in control what they want out and what they want secret. This could have implications and a hand in a new media revolution.
This passage comes from the second page of the article as the second paragraph. The quotes com from David Plouffe, Dan Pfleiffer and an undisclosed reporter.
The main thing that I take away from this section is that the Obama administration knew what it was doing and that they used that to its advantage. They knew that Social Networking was becoming popular and used that to its advantage. They knew what the media would possibly do and sought to side -step that.
The passage means that people who are most up to date are the ones that are going to be more in control what they want out and what they want secret. This could have implications and a hand in a new media revolution.
NON-STOP NEWS
"The President is on a mission, his cheif speechwriter, Jon Favreau, told me, "not just to change politics in Washington but to change the culture of Washington, and the media is part of it."
For me, I think that this claim is a very important one to dwell a bit of thinking and try and picture what is going on. This claim is located in the third paragraph at the end of the sentence. Ken Auletta is saying this about Obama and what he is trying to do through media. He wasn't only giving a heartfelt speech..there was a reason for it. There was something behind it, something that needed to be successful and heard.
I think that it is interesting that Auletta had mentioned this because the more i think about what he said, the more i agree with it. Obama isnt/wasnt just saying a speech but he was trying to somehow connect with his audience and make them think the way he is thinking through using the media all around us. I think that people should if they don't yet, start to realize things like this and be aware of what is going on in todays society and start thinking whether to believe these thing and apply them or to just ignore them.
For me, I think that this claim is a very important one to dwell a bit of thinking and try and picture what is going on. This claim is located in the third paragraph at the end of the sentence. Ken Auletta is saying this about Obama and what he is trying to do through media. He wasn't only giving a heartfelt speech..there was a reason for it. There was something behind it, something that needed to be successful and heard.
I think that it is interesting that Auletta had mentioned this because the more i think about what he said, the more i agree with it. Obama isnt/wasnt just saying a speech but he was trying to somehow connect with his audience and make them think the way he is thinking through using the media all around us. I think that people should if they don't yet, start to realize things like this and be aware of what is going on in todays society and start thinking whether to believe these thing and apply them or to just ignore them.
Monday, February 28, 2011
R R 5
Part 1
In Robert Scholes article, “On Reading a Video Text,” Scholes says, “In processing a narrative text we actually construct the story, bringing a vast repertory of cultural knowledge to bear upon the text we are contemplating.” Scholes asks do we get the story of the product being sold. Are we capable of understanding the cultural information? There are so many commercials out there like the Budweiser commercial in the article. All have the same motive of trying to get you to buy their product over their competition. If they can convince you to believe in their sales tactics; they have successfully hooked you in, like fishing with the correct bait.
http://www.youtubecom/watch?v=4bVr7cbMb7ois
Part 2
Pepsi Refresh Anthem Super bowl ad XLIII
The Pepsi refresh Anthem shows different generations of younger people with a lot of cultural information. In about one minute is trying to tell and sell you the idea that this old product is always new, exciting, and not boring. In this commercial they go back and forth with the old generation of the 1970's and 1980’s, to the 21 st century. Pepsi has Bob Dylan and Will.I.am singing “forever young” throughout the entire song, because it is trying to bridge the generational gap to sell to a larger market of people. The commercial shows people returning from the military in two different wars. Pepsi shows a comparison of gender with Bruce Lee, and a women fighter today showing her karate moves. There are two different Surfers, surfing small waves. The Anthem shows two people spraying peace signs on different wall styles. Pepsi also shows two different cartoons which are Shrek and Gumby. The commercial correlates using a lighter back in the day because everyone that had one and smoked to people today that don’t smoke as much, so using cell phone light, instead of lighters at a concerts that says you like the music and that you are having a good time The commercial shows two movies which are the Blues Brothers and School of Rock that comparing blues and rock and roll of the times. Finally there were two different politically demonstrations going on. What does all this have to do with Pepsi? Not a thing. It is just a bunch of well know icons, of the past and present generations’ to get you to relate and purchase their Pepsi drink product.
In Robert Scholes article, “On Reading a Video Text,” Scholes says, “In processing a narrative text we actually construct the story, bringing a vast repertory of cultural knowledge to bear upon the text we are contemplating.” Scholes asks do we get the story of the product being sold. Are we capable of understanding the cultural information? There are so many commercials out there like the Budweiser commercial in the article. All have the same motive of trying to get you to buy their product over their competition. If they can convince you to believe in their sales tactics; they have successfully hooked you in, like fishing with the correct bait.
http://www.youtubecom/watch?v=4bVr7cbMb7ois
Part 2
Pepsi Refresh Anthem Super bowl ad XLIII
The Pepsi refresh Anthem shows different generations of younger people with a lot of cultural information. In about one minute is trying to tell and sell you the idea that this old product is always new, exciting, and not boring. In this commercial they go back and forth with the old generation of the 1970's and 1980’s, to the 21 st century. Pepsi has Bob Dylan and Will.I.am singing “forever young” throughout the entire song, because it is trying to bridge the generational gap to sell to a larger market of people. The commercial shows people returning from the military in two different wars. Pepsi shows a comparison of gender with Bruce Lee, and a women fighter today showing her karate moves. There are two different Surfers, surfing small waves. The Anthem shows two people spraying peace signs on different wall styles. Pepsi also shows two different cartoons which are Shrek and Gumby. The commercial correlates using a lighter back in the day because everyone that had one and smoked to people today that don’t smoke as much, so using cell phone light, instead of lighters at a concerts that says you like the music and that you are having a good time The commercial shows two movies which are the Blues Brothers and School of Rock that comparing blues and rock and roll of the times. Finally there were two different politically demonstrations going on. What does all this have to do with Pepsi? Not a thing. It is just a bunch of well know icons, of the past and present generations’ to get you to relate and purchase their Pepsi drink product.
R R 6
In the article “Jesus is a Brand of Jeans,” written by Jean Kilbourne, he talks about how products are replacing the connection with human relationships. The products are that person you want it to be. Kilbourne says, “the proposition to promise us a relationship with the product itself: buy this and it will love you,” is an example of how advertisement is working in today’s consumer world.
I am of two minds on this article. Kilbourne is talking about how products are idolized and put on a pedestal. If you are of Christian or Catholic belief, the title would probably be offensive. The church I go to, the pastor has talked about this subject matter. He gave an example of how this truck ad made him idolized this truck. It was so shiny; it could go thru anything in its path. The pastor wanted it. So he went in to how you are not to worship and idolize anything but God. You are somewhat worshiping the product, or coveting your neighbor for having that product. You have to keep up with the Jones’ is the famous expression that some people use in today’s society. My dad and the next door neighbor were perfect example of this as I was growing up. My grandma died and my dad got a good inheritance. So he bought a brand new Bay liner boat. So my next door neighbor bought a new boat too. My dad then bought a new car. So guess what the neighbor did, he bought a new car and commented that he had to keep up with us. I never understood this concept. It might be a guy’s thing. I am glad I never got in to frame of mind. Products don’t affect me as much as it does some people. I never have the money to worry about the newest things or the brands of clothing. Not with the price of gas it is, or how every time I turn around the price of food or the price of utilities are going up. If the minimum wage goes up, everything goes up too and my wage stays the same. Pretty soon minimum wage will be at my wage, and I would have to go into another line of work. But today, I can see why the majority of people buy brand named items with the advertising they do today. For example, the way they make the M&M’s real people. You might want to ask yourself the question, how would you try to sell a product today without using this style of advertising Kilbourne suggests?
I am of two minds on this article. Kilbourne is talking about how products are idolized and put on a pedestal. If you are of Christian or Catholic belief, the title would probably be offensive. The church I go to, the pastor has talked about this subject matter. He gave an example of how this truck ad made him idolized this truck. It was so shiny; it could go thru anything in its path. The pastor wanted it. So he went in to how you are not to worship and idolize anything but God. You are somewhat worshiping the product, or coveting your neighbor for having that product. You have to keep up with the Jones’ is the famous expression that some people use in today’s society. My dad and the next door neighbor were perfect example of this as I was growing up. My grandma died and my dad got a good inheritance. So he bought a brand new Bay liner boat. So my next door neighbor bought a new boat too. My dad then bought a new car. So guess what the neighbor did, he bought a new car and commented that he had to keep up with us. I never understood this concept. It might be a guy’s thing. I am glad I never got in to frame of mind. Products don’t affect me as much as it does some people. I never have the money to worry about the newest things or the brands of clothing. Not with the price of gas it is, or how every time I turn around the price of food or the price of utilities are going up. If the minimum wage goes up, everything goes up too and my wage stays the same. Pretty soon minimum wage will be at my wage, and I would have to go into another line of work. But today, I can see why the majority of people buy brand named items with the advertising they do today. For example, the way they make the M&M’s real people. You might want to ask yourself the question, how would you try to sell a product today without using this style of advertising Kilbourne suggests?
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
RR#6
Mike Prado
English 100
Reading Response #6
2/23/2011
As I watch television, sometimes on a daily basis, I always get annoyed by the frequency of commercials. I mean every time I watch a show almost a third of it is just commercials. Then I notice how companies advertise their products everywhere. Whether it be on television, the internet, magazines, billboards, and many other media sources. Has it ever sunken in that in our current society that there is no possible way to avoid commercials? I mean unless you would want an Amish lifestyle, it is inevitable that you will watch a commercial or two in your lifetime. But as our society constantly watches forms of advertising, one has to think, what are these advertisements really do to us and the products they advertise?
In the article “Jesus is a Brand of Jeans” written by Jean Kilbourne, Kilbourne believes in the idea that society is starting to develop false “relationships” with products instead of human beings. Kilbourne explains that people are targeting by advertisements by having the advertisements attack human emotions and feelings. Kilbourne states that “We are surrounded by hundreds, thousands of messages every day that link our deepest emotions to products, that objectify people and trivialize our most heartfelt moments and relationships. Every emotion is used to sell us something.” Kilbourne basically states that if society is surrounded by advertisements that are aimed at human emotions and feelings than those products will be associated with those feelings. These forms of advertisements can really push ideas into the minds of consumers (or people) of what advertisers want consumers to think. Such as people can associate alcohol with having a good time as most alcohol commercials tend to do. When I grew up I always associated alcohol with the same idea which lead to my underage drinking as well. Or women could associate with only being beautiful by using a certain cosmetic product. Many women face self esteem issues due to these advertisements stating how women should look to be beautiful. Although some could find these advertisements to not harmful as an adult, but what do these advertisements do to children? Children are some of the most heavily influenced people in our society. Another problem Kilbourne addresses is how we associate certain words with product notification. Cleverly stating “Eternity is a perfume by Calvin Klein. Infiniti is an automobile, and Hydra Zen a moisturizer. Jesus is a brand of jeans.” This can show how humans are creating a relationship with these products as we associate them with words. This can be bad as This idea can be seen everywhere, for example, take McDonalds little harmonic and phrase “Dadada I’m Loving It” is know worldwide as there are McDonalds in most countries. If we associate these forms of advertisements in our lives than we only build stronger relationships with products not people.
I believe that a worldwide realization of the power of advertisements need to be taught in order to educated people into the harmful effects of advertising. If people are not educated on the influential ways of advertisements then people are sitting ducks to the manipulation that advertisers tend to force onto us. If people are aware on how to read advertisements and are aware of the false relationships they try to build with society then people will be less likely to fall victim to association through products. If an education through awareness is imposed on advertisements and the products they sell, maybe there could be reduced numbers in issues such as under the age alcohol consumption or women depression.
English 100
Reading Response #6
2/23/2011
As I watch television, sometimes on a daily basis, I always get annoyed by the frequency of commercials. I mean every time I watch a show almost a third of it is just commercials. Then I notice how companies advertise their products everywhere. Whether it be on television, the internet, magazines, billboards, and many other media sources. Has it ever sunken in that in our current society that there is no possible way to avoid commercials? I mean unless you would want an Amish lifestyle, it is inevitable that you will watch a commercial or two in your lifetime. But as our society constantly watches forms of advertising, one has to think, what are these advertisements really do to us and the products they advertise?
In the article “Jesus is a Brand of Jeans” written by Jean Kilbourne, Kilbourne believes in the idea that society is starting to develop false “relationships” with products instead of human beings. Kilbourne explains that people are targeting by advertisements by having the advertisements attack human emotions and feelings. Kilbourne states that “We are surrounded by hundreds, thousands of messages every day that link our deepest emotions to products, that objectify people and trivialize our most heartfelt moments and relationships. Every emotion is used to sell us something.” Kilbourne basically states that if society is surrounded by advertisements that are aimed at human emotions and feelings than those products will be associated with those feelings. These forms of advertisements can really push ideas into the minds of consumers (or people) of what advertisers want consumers to think. Such as people can associate alcohol with having a good time as most alcohol commercials tend to do. When I grew up I always associated alcohol with the same idea which lead to my underage drinking as well. Or women could associate with only being beautiful by using a certain cosmetic product. Many women face self esteem issues due to these advertisements stating how women should look to be beautiful. Although some could find these advertisements to not harmful as an adult, but what do these advertisements do to children? Children are some of the most heavily influenced people in our society. Another problem Kilbourne addresses is how we associate certain words with product notification. Cleverly stating “Eternity is a perfume by Calvin Klein. Infiniti is an automobile, and Hydra Zen a moisturizer. Jesus is a brand of jeans.” This can show how humans are creating a relationship with these products as we associate them with words. This can be bad as This idea can be seen everywhere, for example, take McDonalds little harmonic and phrase “Dadada I’m Loving It” is know worldwide as there are McDonalds in most countries. If we associate these forms of advertisements in our lives than we only build stronger relationships with products not people.
I believe that a worldwide realization of the power of advertisements need to be taught in order to educated people into the harmful effects of advertising. If people are not educated on the influential ways of advertisements then people are sitting ducks to the manipulation that advertisers tend to force onto us. If people are aware on how to read advertisements and are aware of the false relationships they try to build with society then people will be less likely to fall victim to association through products. If an education through awareness is imposed on advertisements and the products they sell, maybe there could be reduced numbers in issues such as under the age alcohol consumption or women depression.
Anna this is the site I went to.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/forum/2010/01/roundtable-2-the-crowd.html#_comform
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/digitalnation/forum/2010/01/roundtable-2-the-crowd.html#_comform
asdfsdf asdfsdf asdg sfdh nvftrds.
Is Google Making us Stupid is a great article, but I skimmed it. Not because I don't have the attention span to read a long article. I just hate reading long articles on a computer screen. The glare, even if I dim the resolution, hurts my eyes after a while. Perhaps this is because I have awful eyes. I print long articles and then read them the old fashioned way instead because it is much easier for me to read from paper than a screen. For good readers, the computer doesn't really change the way we read. I think we know how to change the way we read based on the medium. Less advanced readers don't have that ability and it doesn't matter what they are reading, they just don't get it because they don't have the skills. Reading is reading no matter how you’re doing it. There may be more distractions on the internet but a good reader can move beyond those.
Standing Ovation: Jesus is a brand of jeans ( best title )
Standing Ovation: Jesus is a brand of jeans ( best title ): "In the article “Jesus is a brand of jeans” Jean Kilbourne spreads some light by bringing to evidence the hidden gloomy aspects of media adve..."
Though i agree the human conscious is ruthelessly distorted i dont blame capitalism, advertising, or corporations though they may cause behavior it is rooted in the individuals of our society, the careless and recklessness of our people, without will to change or care, creating an indifferent behavior in all the man's institutions. We do not care. We being the people as a whole, not individually, have no idea what it means to care. We reward and support the behavior of greed and dehumanization by paying self intrested groups, and giving the power they need to do what they please and walk all over the essence of humanity. A friend once told me people are forgivable, attitudes are not. Same goes for this system the condition that most have is changable but the behavior that the system produces is not.
Though i agree the human conscious is ruthelessly distorted i dont blame capitalism, advertising, or corporations though they may cause behavior it is rooted in the individuals of our society, the careless and recklessness of our people, without will to change or care, creating an indifferent behavior in all the man's institutions. We do not care. We being the people as a whole, not individually, have no idea what it means to care. We reward and support the behavior of greed and dehumanization by paying self intrested groups, and giving the power they need to do what they please and walk all over the essence of humanity. A friend once told me people are forgivable, attitudes are not. Same goes for this system the condition that most have is changable but the behavior that the system produces is not.
Jesus is a brand of jeans ( best title )
In the article “Jesus is a brand of jeans” Jean Kilbourne spreads some light by bringing to evidence the hidden gloomy aspects of media advertisements. He emphasizes on the uncountable mediate scenario’s that the masses daily ingurgitate and explains how poisonous and devastating it is to the human spirit. When products become more important than people and love is materialized in products, the human consciousness vanishes allowing a process of dehumanization to take place. It is literally the love of power overthrowing the power of love. How poisonous is that? If we take the time and climb the pyramid to see the source of this unfortunate occurring, we will find that the capitalistic system is the ultimate culprit because it is based on greed and it creates benefit through conflict. I think one cannot critically discuss advertisements without bringing up the main generator of ads. I truly enjoyed reading the article because Jean Kilbourne took the goal of ads to its most extreme ideology which is valuing relationships with products over relationships with humans. As he states “After all, it is easier to love a product than a person. Relationships with human beings are messy, unpredictable, and sometimes dangerous. ‘When was the last time you felt this comfortable in a relationship?’ asks an ad for shoes.” Through this statement we can see that ads sell us the illusion of comfort with a product rather than comfort itself from the perspective of a human being. It tells us that we’d feel more confident and comfortable wearing those shoes than being with a human. What kind of comfort or confidence is that? Here we assist to an obvious illusionary scenario played by the ads corporation. Today this topic is of extreme importance because these capitalistic monsters are surrounding our environment and are infiltrating subconscious messages that connect our most profound feelings to materiel products. We must remain vigilant to these human violations, especially in a capitalistic era where the gap between what it means to be human and the way we live our lives is getting bigger and bigger.
Reading Response 6
Advertising is something people look at and see the big picture, what is being sold in the ad, but what many people don’t realize is they are being sold a relationship; which to company makes you thing the product will give you. In her article, Jesus is a Brand of Jeans; Jean Kilbourne advocates that advertising is changing. The ads are changing in a way that makes you more attached to the product; “Ads have long promised us a better relationship via a product: buy this and you will be loved. But more recently they have gone beyond that proposition to promise us a relationship with the product itself: buy this and it will love you.”
This new way of thinking about advertising is truly what advertisers are doing and have been for a while. People are addicted to products, brands and just even items. Kilbourne states that it is easier to love a product than love a person and we in our society clearly believe this and do it daily. Also, she goes on to show that relationships with products are one way and you don’t have to deal with the other side, the product, breaking your heart or being unpredictable. I do agree that products are much easier to love, but then you do not form that bond that you can with humans; we are making objects into humans by forming relationships with them.
Along with forming relationships with products we also, in general, are brand specific. By this meaning, buy one brand of something and stick to that brand. It’s just like being loyal in a relationship with a person; we are loyal to a brand the same way. People are this way because products are easy to have relationships with and people are not, but if you wanted easy this is a good way out, but who wants to take the easy way out, I know I don’t. I think people resort to this because they don’t want to have to deal with humans who will fight back, state their opinion and maybe even tell them no.
In Kilbourne’s article she states that what she hears at her lectures is “I don’t pay attention to ads… I just tune them out… they have no effect on me.” I would like to think that I do that too, but then I realized through this article, that I am very tuned into what is said and done in advertisements, and they have a bigger impact on my life than I would like to notice. Before reading Kilbourne’s article I had somewhat of an idea of how advertisements were but now, what I thought before is nothing like what I know now. The way I thought before was that advertisements were just trying in any way to appeal to consumers to buy the products, now I realize that ads are trying to get you to form that connection with a product and then once the connection is formed then get you to buy the product.
Reading Response 6
In Jean Kilbourne’s article “Jesus is a Brand of Jeans,” she observes the impact advertisements have had on today’s society. With advertisements everywhere we go, there is no possible way to avoid them. One can try, but eventually, we all run into them. She goes onto explain how advertisements are helping us replace real human relationships with the products being sold. She insists, “The problem with advertising isn’t that it creates artificial needs, but it exploits our very real and human desires. Advertising promotes a bankrupt concept of relationship.” She means that advertisements have a way of making us think these objects can give us real human desires. Such as true friendships, love, all things realistically money cannot buy. She also states, “We learn from childhood that it is far safer to make a commitment to a product than a person, far easier to be loyal to a brand.” Since products can’t betray us or there is really no work involved in that “relationship” it has taken over what our culture is all about now. They are displaying a quicker easier way to fill those desires, instead of working through our problems. Objects are becoming a quick fix for us emotionally and that is the mission of advertisements. They are so carefully crafted, every second of each commercial or every little piece of a billboard was thought so deeply to manipulate us into these thoughts. People are in such denial of advertisements, they continue to brush it off. They are allowing these products to get in the way of the things money can’t buy and in a sense filling a void.
In Kilbourne’s article she states that at every one of her lectures she always hears people say, “I don’t pay attention to ads… I just tune them out… they have no effect on me.” And as I was reading this article and thinking about advertisements I found myself saying the same thing. Then, I took a look into my closet and found brand name jeans and brand name shoes. I have been in denial of how advertisements have truly affected me. I have fallen for the tricks advertisements have attempted to play on everyone. I pretend like I’m different and there is no way I’d fall for that, but in reality I am just the same. In the summer, before I sold my car, I would always see commercials for faster, newer cars. The advertisements would make me feel like my car wasn’t good enough, it gave me a sense that I would be happier if I had a new car. Even though, I had a car that ran perfectly fine and had never crapped out on me, I still wanted to try and give it up just for something shinier and newer. I knew it wouldn’t get me more friends or make me look cooler. I don’t even care about all that, but because of an advertisement I did for a little bit. I hopped on the computer looking for better cars that I could afford, desperately searching. I ended up not buying a new car and selling my old one and I’ve been very content without one. I’m glad I didn’t end up buying a new car, but I still find myself falling for their little tricks. With shoes, clothes, anything and it can be very annoying. It’s just crazy how that 30 seconds can really make such an impact.
In Kilbourne’s article she states that at every one of her lectures she always hears people say, “I don’t pay attention to ads… I just tune them out… they have no effect on me.” And as I was reading this article and thinking about advertisements I found myself saying the same thing. Then, I took a look into my closet and found brand name jeans and brand name shoes. I have been in denial of how advertisements have truly affected me. I have fallen for the tricks advertisements have attempted to play on everyone. I pretend like I’m different and there is no way I’d fall for that, but in reality I am just the same. In the summer, before I sold my car, I would always see commercials for faster, newer cars. The advertisements would make me feel like my car wasn’t good enough, it gave me a sense that I would be happier if I had a new car. Even though, I had a car that ran perfectly fine and had never crapped out on me, I still wanted to try and give it up just for something shinier and newer. I knew it wouldn’t get me more friends or make me look cooler. I don’t even care about all that, but because of an advertisement I did for a little bit. I hopped on the computer looking for better cars that I could afford, desperately searching. I ended up not buying a new car and selling my old one and I’ve been very content without one. I’m glad I didn’t end up buying a new car, but I still find myself falling for their little tricks. With shoes, clothes, anything and it can be very annoying. It’s just crazy how that 30 seconds can really make such an impact.
Jesus is a brand of jeans
Recently I read an article written by Jean Kilbourne entitled “Jesus is a brand of jeans”.
In the article Kilbourne is stressing the Idea that advertising is stripping us of our spirituality, culture is becoming commercialism. Kilbourne believes that because of the way advertisements are deployed they’re changing our values in what I (and I’m pretty sure she) would consider an extremely negative way. Kilbourne talks of their efforts to addict us to consumerism as children and leave us emotionally starved, expecting products to fill the void that they create in us. The culture that comes with these advertisements is turning us into self-indulgent, close minded people Kilbourne sums this idea up quite well bemoaning that “This apparently bottomless consumerism not only depletes the world’s resources, it also depletes our inner resources. It leads inevitably to narcissism and solipsism”. Kilborune also makes a point about how quickly advertisements can really affect a culture that is not consumerist in nature. Kilbourne notes the Gwish’in tribe, a tribe in Alaska, who were first exposed to television in 1980. Within ten years consumerism had taken over the original culture of the tribe, “Beaded moccasins gave way to Nike sneakers, and ‘tundra tea’ to Folger’s instant coffee”.
I find the Ideas Kilbourne present to be quite disturbing. I can’t even begin to think if a way to stop the advertising giants, but it’s frightening to think, with consumerism spreading like wildfire (maybe a little bit slower) what is going to come of both our cultural values and our natural resources. It’s only a matter of time before outside sources introduce these ideals to more currently independent and actually cultured groups, I’m sure it’s going on as I write this. The one thing I can think of that might slow down the cycle would be education. I for one had the wool over my eyes a bit before reading this article, sure I knew that advertisements were designed to get into my pocket and make me want what they’re trying to sell, but I didn’t give much thought to the consequences of my lifestyle. If people were a little more educated on what these ads were doing to them subconsciously perhaps they’d be better equipped to make a conscious decision against them. I can’t help but think, however, this is a pipe dream. The people who want us to consume have an extraordinary amount of resources to keep us in line. If we really wanted to turn things around we’d have to dispose of the radio, television, the internet… It’s a bit unrealistic to expect that. What you can do however is be aware of what the advertisers are trying to do to you, try to live for yourself and not your possessions, raise your children to be cultured not consumers. Teach them about their family, their history. Enlighten those around you, be your own person. If we live by these principles we might just retake culture, and I mean culture in the real sense, not what it is now.
In the article Kilbourne is stressing the Idea that advertising is stripping us of our spirituality, culture is becoming commercialism. Kilbourne believes that because of the way advertisements are deployed they’re changing our values in what I (and I’m pretty sure she) would consider an extremely negative way. Kilbourne talks of their efforts to addict us to consumerism as children and leave us emotionally starved, expecting products to fill the void that they create in us. The culture that comes with these advertisements is turning us into self-indulgent, close minded people Kilbourne sums this idea up quite well bemoaning that “This apparently bottomless consumerism not only depletes the world’s resources, it also depletes our inner resources. It leads inevitably to narcissism and solipsism”. Kilborune also makes a point about how quickly advertisements can really affect a culture that is not consumerist in nature. Kilbourne notes the Gwish’in tribe, a tribe in Alaska, who were first exposed to television in 1980. Within ten years consumerism had taken over the original culture of the tribe, “Beaded moccasins gave way to Nike sneakers, and ‘tundra tea’ to Folger’s instant coffee”.
I find the Ideas Kilbourne present to be quite disturbing. I can’t even begin to think if a way to stop the advertising giants, but it’s frightening to think, with consumerism spreading like wildfire (maybe a little bit slower) what is going to come of both our cultural values and our natural resources. It’s only a matter of time before outside sources introduce these ideals to more currently independent and actually cultured groups, I’m sure it’s going on as I write this. The one thing I can think of that might slow down the cycle would be education. I for one had the wool over my eyes a bit before reading this article, sure I knew that advertisements were designed to get into my pocket and make me want what they’re trying to sell, but I didn’t give much thought to the consequences of my lifestyle. If people were a little more educated on what these ads were doing to them subconsciously perhaps they’d be better equipped to make a conscious decision against them. I can’t help but think, however, this is a pipe dream. The people who want us to consume have an extraordinary amount of resources to keep us in line. If we really wanted to turn things around we’d have to dispose of the radio, television, the internet… It’s a bit unrealistic to expect that. What you can do however is be aware of what the advertisers are trying to do to you, try to live for yourself and not your possessions, raise your children to be cultured not consumers. Teach them about their family, their history. Enlighten those around you, be your own person. If we live by these principles we might just retake culture, and I mean culture in the real sense, not what it is now.
Jesus is a brand of Jesus
“Jesus is a brand of Jeans,” written by Jean Kilbourne who talks about the world of Advertising. “Ads have long promised us a better relationship via a product: buy this and you will be loved. But more recently they have gone beyond that proposition to promise us a relationship with the product itself: buy this and it will love you. The product is not so much the means to an end, as the end itself.” This quote had really grabbed my attention because it states the true meaning of Advertising. Ads used to be there for us for a support after we buy the product but now it’s all about the “product.” People in today’s society seem to pay attention more to advertising than anything else. This article also talks about the way people have better relationships with products rather than an actual person. A product won’t call people names, won’t tell them everything they are doing wrong. A product is simply a product. “In the world of advertising, lovers grow cold, spouses grow old, children grow up and away – but possessions stay with us and never change.” Everything eventually disappears from us in the real world, but the stuff we own are there with us as long as we want them to be and they don’t ever change.
I agree with the quote, “Ads have long promised us a better relationship via a product: buy this and you will be loved. But more recently they have gone beyond that proposition to promise us a relationship with the product itself: buy this and it will love you. The product is not so much the means to an end, as the end itself,” because I have experienced this in my life as well as every person in the world today has. Advertising is one of those things that are constantly with us and around us no matter where we are. We might not notice that it has an affect on us until we are at the store or somewhere else with products. For instance, a couple weeks ago I went shopping for a pair of white jeans. I went to Wal-Mart, K-Mart, TJ Max, etc., and couldn’t find any pair that I liked or were “in style.” Then once I went to the mall I had ended up buying $50 pair of jeans. Why?? I could have gotten a pair of pants that look about the same for a lot cheaper. Is it because I really liked them or is it because of the brand? I think that advertising plays a big role in our lives when we don’t even realize it.
I agree with the quote, “Ads have long promised us a better relationship via a product: buy this and you will be loved. But more recently they have gone beyond that proposition to promise us a relationship with the product itself: buy this and it will love you. The product is not so much the means to an end, as the end itself,” because I have experienced this in my life as well as every person in the world today has. Advertising is one of those things that are constantly with us and around us no matter where we are. We might not notice that it has an affect on us until we are at the store or somewhere else with products. For instance, a couple weeks ago I went shopping for a pair of white jeans. I went to Wal-Mart, K-Mart, TJ Max, etc., and couldn’t find any pair that I liked or were “in style.” Then once I went to the mall I had ended up buying $50 pair of jeans. Why?? I could have gotten a pair of pants that look about the same for a lot cheaper. Is it because I really liked them or is it because of the brand? I think that advertising plays a big role in our lives when we don’t even realize it.
Is Consumerism Leaving us Unsatisfied?
Generally, people do not love unconditionally. The way humans take in information is by analyzing and placing it into categories. Each intact human constantly make judgments about you and everything around them. Objects do not judge us. Most of us know what it’s like to be backstabbed or betrayed, and it’s one of the worst feelings I have personally experienced. Products do not possess the ability to betray us, they’ll be there as long as you keep them there. Ad producers have realized this and are now marketing products as stability in your unstable life.
In the article Jesus is a Brand of Jeans, Jean Kilbourne informs us, “Ads have long promised us a better relationship via a product: buy this and you will be loved. But more recently they have gone beyond that proposition to promise us a relationship with the product itself: buy this and it will love you. After all, it is easier to love a product than a person. Relationships with human beings are messy, unpredictable, and sometimes dangerous. ‘When was the last time you felt this comfortable in a relationship?’ asks an ad for shoes. Our shoes never ask us to wash the dishes or tell us we’re getting fat. Even more important, products don’t betray us.”
I agree that products are being marketed in the place of humans because my childhood experiences with advertisements were that if I had a Barbie doll, it would not only replace my friends but it would be my friend. I believe children are the most vulnerable to ads because they are so trusting and naive. Kilbourne argues that consumerism is basically stating that the only way we can be happy is through purchasing products. However, in my psych class at WCC, I learned that based on all sorts of different components of happiness, the people that are the happiest are the ones that have the least. I believe this is due to the fact that they are satisfied with what little they have, and they are not exposed to the million and one things there are to want. When we want things that we do not end up getting that causes negative feelings. Without these completely unnecessary wanting we further appreciate what we have.
When I was in fifth grade I went to Guatemala for the first time. I grew up a privileged child, so this was a real eye opener for me. The purpose of the trip was to work with a Guatemalan family and other people involved in the same organization as us to build a home. To build a concrete house (which was relatively small considering how many people each family has) costs around $2,000 and the family is required to take out a micro-loan. The family is not required to help but they did just as much work as we did, maybe more. These were the hardest working people I had come across. They were ecstatic to finally have a house and no longer live in a metal shack they had built. We had marshmallows in the car with us and we brought them to the family. They were so thankful! They savored every bite and did not ask for more, they were content.
We also visited a family that did not qualify for a micro-loan. There were six children in the family, all very close in age because they don’t believe in or have access to birth control there. They were living in a shack and burning plastic Frisbees instead of wood because that is what they have access to. They each had a few items of clothing, and worked in a field nearby making a few dollars a week. We talked to them through someone with us who spoke Spanish and translated for us. For people living in a shack the size of my living room in complete poverty they were happier and more thankful than the average person I know. Therefore, I agree with Kilbourne that consumerism leaves us feeling unsatisfied.
In the article Jesus is a Brand of Jeans, Jean Kilbourne informs us, “Ads have long promised us a better relationship via a product: buy this and you will be loved. But more recently they have gone beyond that proposition to promise us a relationship with the product itself: buy this and it will love you. After all, it is easier to love a product than a person. Relationships with human beings are messy, unpredictable, and sometimes dangerous. ‘When was the last time you felt this comfortable in a relationship?’ asks an ad for shoes. Our shoes never ask us to wash the dishes or tell us we’re getting fat. Even more important, products don’t betray us.”
I agree that products are being marketed in the place of humans because my childhood experiences with advertisements were that if I had a Barbie doll, it would not only replace my friends but it would be my friend. I believe children are the most vulnerable to ads because they are so trusting and naive. Kilbourne argues that consumerism is basically stating that the only way we can be happy is through purchasing products. However, in my psych class at WCC, I learned that based on all sorts of different components of happiness, the people that are the happiest are the ones that have the least. I believe this is due to the fact that they are satisfied with what little they have, and they are not exposed to the million and one things there are to want. When we want things that we do not end up getting that causes negative feelings. Without these completely unnecessary wanting we further appreciate what we have.
When I was in fifth grade I went to Guatemala for the first time. I grew up a privileged child, so this was a real eye opener for me. The purpose of the trip was to work with a Guatemalan family and other people involved in the same organization as us to build a home. To build a concrete house (which was relatively small considering how many people each family has) costs around $2,000 and the family is required to take out a micro-loan. The family is not required to help but they did just as much work as we did, maybe more. These were the hardest working people I had come across. They were ecstatic to finally have a house and no longer live in a metal shack they had built. We had marshmallows in the car with us and we brought them to the family. They were so thankful! They savored every bite and did not ask for more, they were content.
We also visited a family that did not qualify for a micro-loan. There were six children in the family, all very close in age because they don’t believe in or have access to birth control there. They were living in a shack and burning plastic Frisbees instead of wood because that is what they have access to. They each had a few items of clothing, and worked in a field nearby making a few dollars a week. We talked to them through someone with us who spoke Spanish and translated for us. For people living in a shack the size of my living room in complete poverty they were happier and more thankful than the average person I know. Therefore, I agree with Kilbourne that consumerism leaves us feeling unsatisfied.
#6
In the Article Jesus is a Brand of Jeans, by Jean Kilbourne, it is brought up how society has been affected by advertisements. We might not always be able to see that it is or how it’s affecting us, but there is really no way around it. We see ads on everything now a day and most have to do with our appearance. It’s all about how you will look with a certain product and how you will feel after you have it. The article mentions how most human beings look for relationships and when we do we look for one that will last, we tend to do this with products we buy and forget about people relationships; “it is easier to love a product than a person. Relationships with human beings are messy, unpredictable, and sometimes dangerous.“ Says Kilbourne. It makes perfect sense why we would do this; we have made it a major necessity in life to focus on how we look, so we are going to buy whatever is most convincing to help achieve this. We tend to be sensitive creatures so relationships scare us, but we do want that feeling of having someone there for you, therefore we get hooked in our products, because they will never disappoint us. In regards to advertisements Kilbourne states: “cumulatively they create a climate of cynicism that is poisonous to relationships. Ad after ad portrays our real lives as dull and ordinary, commitment to human beings as something to be avoided.” Not only to ads persuade us to buy merchandise, but they put thoughts in our head of how we should or could be living. The article really shows how we have become so much more invested in the latest products then what it means to be a human. From experience I know how it feels to be affected by advertisements. When I was younger I always read Seventeen magazine, and looked at all the make-up and clothes ideas, finding ways to improve myself and change. I would get so hooked on little changes that I wanted to make; sometimes it was something as small as a new style of shirt. I really thought I would be better off with certain product and I would believe whatever the ads told me. There was a specific time I remember when my sister and I were watching TV and a commercial came on for “Veet shaving products” It’s similar to Nair because you leave it on and it takes off your hair without a razor. The second we saw it we instantly became intrigued and left for the store to purchase it. Of course when we tried it, it wasn’t nearly as impressive as the commercial made it seem, but it fooled us and who knows how many others. I always told myself that I didn’t actually believe that buying certain items would “improve” me or make me feel better, but I can honestly say I must have really thought that. When looking at ads, I got ideas of what I thought I wanted to look like, be known for, what my relationship would look like. Even though I said that the media and advertisements didn’t affect me, they most certainly shaped my thoughts. One picture could cause me to obsess over having a product that in the end wouldn’t work and would be a waste of money. I still find myself acting this way, but when I notice it I just try to remind myself that it’s about who I am as a person and that always outshines what you have on.
reading response 6
In Jean Kilbourne’s article “Jesus is a Brand of Jeans,” the author attempts to grasp how the culture of advertising is influencing the nature of how we relate to each other. Kilbourne explains that advertising doesn’t merely function on the level of promoting a product. That is the endpoint, ultimately, but we would be deceiving ourselves if we thought we were immune to the side-effects. These unnoticed effects are namely the reversing of our value system, as Kilbourne explains: “Advertising encourages us not only to objectify each other but to feel passion for products rather than our partners.” This substituting of human/spiritual values for the values of material consumerism causes people to become cynical about their relationships with people, but romantic about their relationships with products. Kilbourne warns that this economic model of pathological commercialism leads to a toxic society, where “the major motivating force for social change throughout the world today is this belief that happiness comes from the market.”
I agree with Kilbourne that too much of this sort of commercialism can have negative consequences because I have known several people who have become swept up in the craze for fancy new things and went bankrupt as a result. This fixation with consuming led them to irresponsible spending, where they bought too many things they couldn‘t afford, and they eventually lost everything. However, I don’t think it would be best if we attempted to remove this control of advertising from our life. The majority of people I know are so engrained in this path, and so reliant on this value system, that they have nothing to fall back on, and would probably fare very badly in this system if we disrupted it. I have met several people who through their own admission would not be able to function without this influence in their life. Without the idea that there is a reward in their life for working so hard, rewards that contribute directly and immediately to pleasure, not the reward of immaterial values that have less direct and immediate hedonistic value. So, I don’t think we should necessarily detach the cultural context that feeds the dissatisfaction and craving in the populace, because without it we would be threatening to remove the impetus of people to function in our society. For instance, if we all lived in a void for long enough, we would slowly lose the defense mechanism of battling unhappiness with consuming, and thus the need for working to keep consuming would become less important. But since we’re all trapped in a bubble that makes people buy, in a job most of us don‘t think contributes to our happiness directly, and surrounded by people who don’t seem to know any better than keep consuming, the best scenario in our system seems to be getting the most out of a crummy situation by exploiting the advantages of a system that exploits us. This is not ideal, propagating discontent in the public is certainly not ethical, but our Capitalist system cannot simply be slowed down, so wide-scale unhappiness is a far more feasible economic policy for Capitalism than making everybody seek happiness through pursuing immaterial values. Without ever-increasing the consumption of the people, our system will inevitably lead to overproduction and possible collapse. So, advertising shouldn’t not exist nor exist too much.
I agree with Kilbourne that too much of this sort of commercialism can have negative consequences because I have known several people who have become swept up in the craze for fancy new things and went bankrupt as a result. This fixation with consuming led them to irresponsible spending, where they bought too many things they couldn‘t afford, and they eventually lost everything. However, I don’t think it would be best if we attempted to remove this control of advertising from our life. The majority of people I know are so engrained in this path, and so reliant on this value system, that they have nothing to fall back on, and would probably fare very badly in this system if we disrupted it. I have met several people who through their own admission would not be able to function without this influence in their life. Without the idea that there is a reward in their life for working so hard, rewards that contribute directly and immediately to pleasure, not the reward of immaterial values that have less direct and immediate hedonistic value. So, I don’t think we should necessarily detach the cultural context that feeds the dissatisfaction and craving in the populace, because without it we would be threatening to remove the impetus of people to function in our society. For instance, if we all lived in a void for long enough, we would slowly lose the defense mechanism of battling unhappiness with consuming, and thus the need for working to keep consuming would become less important. But since we’re all trapped in a bubble that makes people buy, in a job most of us don‘t think contributes to our happiness directly, and surrounded by people who don’t seem to know any better than keep consuming, the best scenario in our system seems to be getting the most out of a crummy situation by exploiting the advantages of a system that exploits us. This is not ideal, propagating discontent in the public is certainly not ethical, but our Capitalist system cannot simply be slowed down, so wide-scale unhappiness is a far more feasible economic policy for Capitalism than making everybody seek happiness through pursuing immaterial values. Without ever-increasing the consumption of the people, our system will inevitably lead to overproduction and possible collapse. So, advertising shouldn’t not exist nor exist too much.
Reading Response #6
Advertisement are made to do there job, by selling you a type of product and persuading you to but it. In many ways ads are presented, when humans taking it as amusing, funny and serious. In the article “Jesus is a brand of Jeans,” Jean Kilbourne addresses “The problem with advertising isn’t that it creates artificial needs, but that it exploits our very real and human desires.” In other words Ads are using what humans desire to sell of there product and manipulate humans by thinking on what they are passionately wanting or what they need. Even though we know how many products can’t give you the desire, the consumers are attracted to the way it’s put into words and how it’s shown to make it so real. Like Kilbourne says “It’s easier to love a product than its person.” He explains how many products are presented as not judging you, making you comfortable and how it will never betray you. In other words it’s the opposite with a relationship it’s easier to be with a product than a person; a better relationship is built up. Advertising is not only using human’s emotions but it also uses humans self image to sell of a product. As Kilbourne puts it “Advertising often turns people into objects.” Human’s desires again are used to grab the attention of consumers. A better way to have consumers always is by putting it out to children. “If you hook them early they are yours for life.” When products are thrown out to an early age you have more people addicted to your product. “The addict is the ideal consumer,” this knowledge is used for products to be sold mainly to their wanting people that are already consuming it. Products are thrown out to the people that are more hooked.
I agree with Kilbourne that products in advertising are thrown out in using the image of humans with my experience. “Advertising often turns people into objects.” Many women and men’s bodies are used to sell of a product. Feelings are made more depressing when you see ads with the “Perfect Women Body.” When I see TV an there is the skinny, slim women presented on the TV, I think “Wow, I want to have a body like that.” I think women think of these more since “The Models” are presented as the perfect women.” The self-esteem of girls plummets as they reach adolescence partly because they cannot possibly escape the message that their bodies are objects, and imperfect objects at that.”
This is true since after watching TV I tell my mom “I want to get plastic surgery to have a nice body.” Humans are washed out with been skinny and having this perfect body with out noticing, that the only thing that matters is the feelings and what’s inside not out.
I agree with Kilbourne that products in advertising are thrown out in using the image of humans with my experience. “Advertising often turns people into objects.” Many women and men’s bodies are used to sell of a product. Feelings are made more depressing when you see ads with the “Perfect Women Body.” When I see TV an there is the skinny, slim women presented on the TV, I think “Wow, I want to have a body like that.” I think women think of these more since “The Models” are presented as the perfect women.” The self-esteem of girls plummets as they reach adolescence partly because they cannot possibly escape the message that their bodies are objects, and imperfect objects at that.”
This is true since after watching TV I tell my mom “I want to get plastic surgery to have a nice body.” Humans are washed out with been skinny and having this perfect body with out noticing, that the only thing that matters is the feelings and what’s inside not out.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Reading Response #6
In the article “Jesus is a brand of jeans” by Jean Kilbourne she fears that advertisements are “exploiting our human emotions and replacing them with inanimate objects.” In other words Kilbourne believes that advertisers are praying on our feelings and insecurities and using them to get us to buy more stuff we don’t need. Feel fat buy this product to make you skinny, feel lonely buy this product to make friends or lovers, feel sad buy this product to make you happy, feel happy buy this product to capture the moment, and the list could go on and on. There is an unending amount of items out there marketed to cure almost every humane ailment imaginable.
Kilbourne reminds us that advertisers will go to any length to capture consumers and sell their product. Poaching on the young the old, big or small, even on the sick and addicted, she states “the addict is the ideal consumer” Meaning who better to buy your product than someone hooked on it. So the advertising agencies go to extremes to know their consumer and the best ways to hook them and she states “hook them early they are yours for life.” So if ads are made directed at children and young adults like fuzzy camels and smoking cowboys to the new amped up alcoholic energy drinks. They can have an addiction started before they are even old enough to buy the product. End result equals more years of buying product which means bigger profit.
I agree with Kilbourne that advertisements are meant to make us feel like we should buy their products to replace our feelings with something inanimate because of my own experiences with inanimate objects and human emotions. She mentions cigarettes and says “when I was a smoker, I felt that cigarettes were my friends.” I celebrate the fact that she said this because when I was a smoker I felt exactly that way too. When no one else was around at least they were. Even to this day I still miss them and sometimes think about them. But when I have succumbed to the desire and have had one I remember why we are not best buddies anymore but I am sure after hanging out for a while we could chum up right quick.
Did advertisements do this to me? I am sure in a long tangled web of consumer culture and this media based frenzy to all be uniquely the same my addictions and millions of other people’s addictions at some point were a consideration for some advertising executive’s decision on how to market a product. So here we are a nation of consumers perfectly primed to be little buying machines. Buy something use it a while than its time to replace it, upgrade it, or get rid of it for the next new thing that comes along. Rarely do I actually throw something away because It actually wore out or was all used up. And what does that say about me and my habits? Maybe the only things I actually need to buy are those things that actually did wear out or were empty. Maybe I should follow through with this idea and try this theory out or maybe not.
Kilbourne reminds us that advertisers will go to any length to capture consumers and sell their product. Poaching on the young the old, big or small, even on the sick and addicted, she states “the addict is the ideal consumer” Meaning who better to buy your product than someone hooked on it. So the advertising agencies go to extremes to know their consumer and the best ways to hook them and she states “hook them early they are yours for life.” So if ads are made directed at children and young adults like fuzzy camels and smoking cowboys to the new amped up alcoholic energy drinks. They can have an addiction started before they are even old enough to buy the product. End result equals more years of buying product which means bigger profit.
I agree with Kilbourne that advertisements are meant to make us feel like we should buy their products to replace our feelings with something inanimate because of my own experiences with inanimate objects and human emotions. She mentions cigarettes and says “when I was a smoker, I felt that cigarettes were my friends.” I celebrate the fact that she said this because when I was a smoker I felt exactly that way too. When no one else was around at least they were. Even to this day I still miss them and sometimes think about them. But when I have succumbed to the desire and have had one I remember why we are not best buddies anymore but I am sure after hanging out for a while we could chum up right quick.
Did advertisements do this to me? I am sure in a long tangled web of consumer culture and this media based frenzy to all be uniquely the same my addictions and millions of other people’s addictions at some point were a consideration for some advertising executive’s decision on how to market a product. So here we are a nation of consumers perfectly primed to be little buying machines. Buy something use it a while than its time to replace it, upgrade it, or get rid of it for the next new thing that comes along. Rarely do I actually throw something away because It actually wore out or was all used up. And what does that say about me and my habits? Maybe the only things I actually need to buy are those things that actually did wear out or were empty. Maybe I should follow through with this idea and try this theory out or maybe not.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Reading Response #5
In Robert Scholes essay “On Reading a Video Text” he explains how to understand a video text by sharing he’s ideas on ideological criticism and cultural reinforcement. Supporting and enhancing our ideology or our strong belief system is cultural reinforcement. Scholes explains that in order to understand the commercial like the Budweiser commercial he uses in his essay we need to understand the structure of baseball. He elaborates that by living in America we obtain this cultural knowledge. By understanding the well known cultural game of baseball Scholes explains how it reinforces our cultural belief by being a part of it.
One of these cultural beliefs is that America works. Scholes writes: we root for the umpire because we want the system to work not just baseball but the whole thing: America.” By understanding the cultural reinforcement the commercial sells the beer to the audience by selling the “American Way” first. Then the commercial try’s to sell the beer by connecting the nation to the product creating a “national beer for the national pastime” (Scholes 1989).
The minute long McDonalds commercial starts out with two well known professional NBA basketball stars Dwight Howard and LeBron James. Dwight Howard is practicing on a basketball court in Indianapolis at Conseco Field house when LeBron James comes in with his McDonalds lunch that contains a Big Mac and Fries. Then Dwight says he will play him for his lunch and that the first one to miss their shoot watches the other one eat. LeBron agrees put his lunch on the seat and they both begin the trick-shot competition for the Big Mac and fries. They exchange and perform tricks until Dwight Howard Brakes the hoop while performing his 360 free throw line Olympic style landing shot. That is when a white male starts clapping and saying “great show guys and thanks for lunch” after eating the last French fry and walking off leaving Dwight Howard and LeBron James confused.
This ad is not only trying to convince you to buy McDonalds food but it is also trying to convince us that the McDonalds food is for the hard working class. This McDonalds commercial does this by having two black NBA stars play each other for the Big Mac and Fries. By living in America we should know that it is harder for people of color to succeed in life. So we should know that Dwight Howard and LeBron James must have worked very hard to get to where they are. Having a male dressed in a nice suite at the end of the commercial eating the McDonalds lunch also portrays that he is a hard worker and the McDonalds lunch was right for him.
In order to understand this commercial you need to know that these are not just ordinary basketball players but they are professional NBA stars and by living in America where basketball is popular you should have this cultural knowledge. You should also know that these two NBA basketball players must have worked hard to get to where they are now because it wasn’t always easy for black people to succeed in life living in America.
By combining the hard working class and McDonalds food in the 60 second commercial it reinforces the cultural narrative/ myth that working hard and giving your best pays off at the end. The commercial reinforces that in order to succeed in life you have to give it everything you’ve got.
In Robert Scholes essay “On Reading a Video Text” he explains how to understand a video text by sharing he’s ideas on ideological criticism and cultural reinforcement. Supporting and enhancing our ideology or our strong belief system is cultural reinforcement. Scholes explains that in order to understand the commercial like the Budweiser commercial he uses in his essay we need to understand the structure of baseball. He elaborates that by living in America we obtain this cultural knowledge. By understanding the well known cultural game of baseball Scholes explains how it reinforces our cultural belief by being a part of it.
One of these cultural beliefs is that America works. Scholes writes: we root for the umpire because we want the system to work not just baseball but the whole thing: America.” By understanding the cultural reinforcement the commercial sells the beer to the audience by selling the “American Way” first. Then the commercial try’s to sell the beer by connecting the nation to the product creating a “national beer for the national pastime” (Scholes 1989).
The minute long McDonalds commercial starts out with two well known professional NBA basketball stars Dwight Howard and LeBron James. Dwight Howard is practicing on a basketball court in Indianapolis at Conseco Field house when LeBron James comes in with his McDonalds lunch that contains a Big Mac and Fries. Then Dwight says he will play him for his lunch and that the first one to miss their shoot watches the other one eat. LeBron agrees put his lunch on the seat and they both begin the trick-shot competition for the Big Mac and fries. They exchange and perform tricks until Dwight Howard Brakes the hoop while performing his 360 free throw line Olympic style landing shot. That is when a white male starts clapping and saying “great show guys and thanks for lunch” after eating the last French fry and walking off leaving Dwight Howard and LeBron James confused.
This ad is not only trying to convince you to buy McDonalds food but it is also trying to convince us that the McDonalds food is for the hard working class. This McDonalds commercial does this by having two black NBA stars play each other for the Big Mac and Fries. By living in America we should know that it is harder for people of color to succeed in life. So we should know that Dwight Howard and LeBron James must have worked very hard to get to where they are. Having a male dressed in a nice suite at the end of the commercial eating the McDonalds lunch also portrays that he is a hard worker and the McDonalds lunch was right for him.
In order to understand this commercial you need to know that these are not just ordinary basketball players but they are professional NBA stars and by living in America where basketball is popular you should have this cultural knowledge. You should also know that these two NBA basketball players must have worked hard to get to where they are now because it wasn’t always easy for black people to succeed in life living in America.
By combining the hard working class and McDonalds food in the 60 second commercial it reinforces the cultural narrative/ myth that working hard and giving your best pays off at the end. The commercial reinforces that in order to succeed in life you have to give it everything you’ve got.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Reading Response #5
As technology becomes more intertwined with the daily lives of individuals today the power of video texts has greatly increased. In the essay “On Reading a Video Text” be scholar Robert Scholes emphasizes the power of this kind of text and to explain his point dissects a commercial and explains his analysis on it. In his demonstration of a commercial analysis Scholes uses a Budweiser commercial to convey his point. His demonstration shows how in certain video texts we need to have cultural understanding like traditions and well known stories like “rags to riches”. Scholes also points out that with some commercials it sells more then just the product. In his example of the Budweiser commercial it is about an umpire at a baseball game making calls and he gets criticized by his decisions but sticks to his opinion. Scholes states “We root for the umpire because we want the system to work-not just baseball but the whole thing:
After reading this essay, I watched a music video “Stupid Girls” by singer Pink and wanted to dissect and grasp the full concept of the video. In the video Pink demonstrates how the women today are being critiqued and judged by society. The video starts out with a little girl sitting on the couch with a Barbie watching TV. As she flips through the channels she starts to see various videos that demonstrate what society’s women of today strive for. Pink expresses this by showing what women today find beautiful, how a nice tan, a big chest, and being skinny are desired. She uses different scandals and well known stereotypes to convey her point such as the Paris Hilton sex tape scandal, the longing to own a chi Wawa dog, bulimic girls and even the Barbie the little girl is holding in the beginning. Pink implies how women today are becoming very superficial and points out that women have lost many ambitions in her lyrics she even states “What happened to the dreams of a girl president, she’s dancing in the video next to 50 cent”. I think that Pink makes a very interesting point in this song and video and she does a good job communicating to her audience her main point. With the help of Scholes it was interesting for me to breakdown a video with better understanding, to see more of the whole picture that Pink was trying to express. I believe Pinks main point to be not just how women today are becoming “stupid” but that as women long for superficial perfection and acceptance they loose who they really are and become fake and are ultimately unhappy. At the end of the video the TV turns off and the little girl has a decision; to either play with her dolls or go outside and play football, she chooses the football.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Reading Respons #5: System of a Down: BYOB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUzd9KyIDrM
During my high school years, I learned of a band called System of a Down. System of a Down is a band who provides a no care attitude with the messages they choose to convey with their music. The lyrics to their songs are edgy, and their songs tackle many of the political/ social issues that surround America today such as America’s involvement in the Iraq war, government influences on society (propaganda) , and Hollywood’s social effect on society. Their music videos help them convey their messages into rich video texts, and System of a Down do not disappoint their fans as their music videos help fans to try to see the real truths of America. The song “BYOB” or Bring “Your Own Bomb” is a great song to help listeners take into consideration the American military and the governments actions/roles in the military. This song helps paint a picture of a different America and this song presents the issues which are aimed towards Americas involvement in the Iraq war.
Being able to read video texts such as music videos will help oneself really see the message that the artist wishes to convey to their listeners. In the article “On Reading a Video Text” by Robert Scholes, Scholes explains the effects of video texts and how video texts should be analyzed carefully, especially in a society that is full of them. Scholes goes on to explain that Video texts help provide society with a format of viewing to help entertain society. Video texts help engage the viewers mind by providing visual images to make a viewer’s brain comprehend and assume the purposes of the video texts. Scholes explains the concept of culture reinforcement, and Scholes uses the idea of cultural reinforcement to convey the idea set that America loves to push the ideas of the American dreams to be true. Basically America loves to sell America. Scholes explains the concept of cultural reinforcement by stating, “By cultural reinforcement, I mean the process through which video texts confirm viewers in their ideological positions and reassure them as to their membership in a collective cultural body”. Scholes basically states that American video texts,(especially commercials) like to push the concept of the American dream and these video texts can push the ideological views that the government wishes to convey to the people. The ideological views that America is a great country and America is a place where you can start from nothing and get somewhere. These views of America are challenged in the video “BYOB”.
“BYOB” or “Bring Your Own Bomb” was made during the time when America was fighting in the Iraq War, and the music video sets the stage for controversy behind the Iraq war and the government involvement (or non involvement) in the war. The video starts out with these military like individuals marching, and these individuals are wearing paintball masks. On these paintball masks there are words displayed on them such as Die, Obey, and Buy. This could symbolize how the military is ran by the government as these soldier like individual are conveying messages perhaps a government would want to instill on its people through propaganda. As the band is marching through the streets, System of a Down is playing the song. But as the chorus starts, the video moves to a party where everyone is dancing and having a good time (as the lyrics suggest). Then eventually the military like people break into the party and start subduing the people. Which could demonstrate the idea of the government imposing its will on the people and essentially limiting our rights (or the people having a good time). Then towards the end of the video, the party people (and the band) are also wearing these masks with the same messages conveyed on them as the soldier like individuals do. This is where the assumption can be made that the government uses tactics such as propaganda to help brainwash and subdue the people in this country. The government wants people to think the way the governments wants them to think. By this I mean the governments wants the people to follow its rules and follow their system of tasks without the people interfering with their personal lives. In the main chorus of the song its states, “Why do they always send the poor? Barbarism by Barbaras, With pointed heels, victorious victories kneel,
For brand new spanking' deals., Marching forward hypocritic and hypnotic computers, you depending on our protection, yet you feed us lies from the tabletop.” These lyrics help convey the message that the System of a Down wants the view to consider. To break it down, “why do they always send the poor?” is a reference to the lack of higher class individuals in the military. “barbarism by Barbaras” and “with pointed heels” basically references Barbara Bush. “Victorious victories kneel, for brand new spankin’ deals” references the mass consumerism in this country and role is has on the people. “Marching forward hypocritic and hypnotic computer” references to issues with technology and the abuse of technology in our country. The hypocritic probably references to the politicians or the government itself. Finally “you depend on our protection, yet you feed us lies from the tabletop”, basically references to how it is the people of the country who are fighting these wars that the government engages in. In return the government chooses to
“feed us lies from the tabletop”, which states how the government chooses not to disclose information to its people or lie to them about scandals and other issues in this country.
Basically this song wants the viewer to look at this alternate version of America, and System wants the viewer to think twice about the governments role in our daily. The idea is to think as an individual, especially when it comes to media presented in the form of video texts.
During my high school years, I learned of a band called System of a Down. System of a Down is a band who provides a no care attitude with the messages they choose to convey with their music. The lyrics to their songs are edgy, and their songs tackle many of the political/ social issues that surround America today such as America’s involvement in the Iraq war, government influences on society (propaganda) , and Hollywood’s social effect on society. Their music videos help them convey their messages into rich video texts, and System of a Down do not disappoint their fans as their music videos help fans to try to see the real truths of America. The song “BYOB” or Bring “Your Own Bomb” is a great song to help listeners take into consideration the American military and the governments actions/roles in the military. This song helps paint a picture of a different America and this song presents the issues which are aimed towards Americas involvement in the Iraq war.
Being able to read video texts such as music videos will help oneself really see the message that the artist wishes to convey to their listeners. In the article “On Reading a Video Text” by Robert Scholes, Scholes explains the effects of video texts and how video texts should be analyzed carefully, especially in a society that is full of them. Scholes goes on to explain that Video texts help provide society with a format of viewing to help entertain society. Video texts help engage the viewers mind by providing visual images to make a viewer’s brain comprehend and assume the purposes of the video texts. Scholes explains the concept of culture reinforcement, and Scholes uses the idea of cultural reinforcement to convey the idea set that America loves to push the ideas of the American dreams to be true. Basically America loves to sell America. Scholes explains the concept of cultural reinforcement by stating, “By cultural reinforcement, I mean the process through which video texts confirm viewers in their ideological positions and reassure them as to their membership in a collective cultural body”. Scholes basically states that American video texts,(especially commercials) like to push the concept of the American dream and these video texts can push the ideological views that the government wishes to convey to the people. The ideological views that America is a great country and America is a place where you can start from nothing and get somewhere. These views of America are challenged in the video “BYOB”.
“BYOB” or “Bring Your Own Bomb” was made during the time when America was fighting in the Iraq War, and the music video sets the stage for controversy behind the Iraq war and the government involvement (or non involvement) in the war. The video starts out with these military like individuals marching, and these individuals are wearing paintball masks. On these paintball masks there are words displayed on them such as Die, Obey, and Buy. This could symbolize how the military is ran by the government as these soldier like individual are conveying messages perhaps a government would want to instill on its people through propaganda. As the band is marching through the streets, System of a Down is playing the song. But as the chorus starts, the video moves to a party where everyone is dancing and having a good time (as the lyrics suggest). Then eventually the military like people break into the party and start subduing the people. Which could demonstrate the idea of the government imposing its will on the people and essentially limiting our rights (or the people having a good time). Then towards the end of the video, the party people (and the band) are also wearing these masks with the same messages conveyed on them as the soldier like individuals do. This is where the assumption can be made that the government uses tactics such as propaganda to help brainwash and subdue the people in this country. The government wants people to think the way the governments wants them to think. By this I mean the governments wants the people to follow its rules and follow their system of tasks without the people interfering with their personal lives. In the main chorus of the song its states, “Why do they always send the poor? Barbarism by Barbaras, With pointed heels, victorious victories kneel,
For brand new spanking' deals., Marching forward hypocritic and hypnotic computers, you depending on our protection, yet you feed us lies from the tabletop.” These lyrics help convey the message that the System of a Down wants the view to consider. To break it down, “why do they always send the poor?” is a reference to the lack of higher class individuals in the military. “barbarism by Barbaras” and “with pointed heels” basically references Barbara Bush. “Victorious victories kneel, for brand new spankin’ deals” references the mass consumerism in this country and role is has on the people. “Marching forward hypocritic and hypnotic computer” references to issues with technology and the abuse of technology in our country. The hypocritic probably references to the politicians or the government itself. Finally “you depend on our protection, yet you feed us lies from the tabletop”, basically references to how it is the people of the country who are fighting these wars that the government engages in. In return the government chooses to
“feed us lies from the tabletop”, which states how the government chooses not to disclose information to its people or lie to them about scandals and other issues in this country.
Basically this song wants the viewer to look at this alternate version of America, and System wants the viewer to think twice about the governments role in our daily. The idea is to think as an individual, especially when it comes to media presented in the form of video texts.
Reading Responce #5 - Stupid Girls
The music video “stupid girl” by P!nk is all about its name. This video starts off with a little girl watching a class of woman students all sitting . Soon enough, beside the little girl appear the angel version of p!nk and the devil p!nk and begin to murmur “stupid girl“ to the little girl sitting on the couch. The television starts off with a teacher and all the female students are mocking the teacher as she waves her hair as if they are being taught how to do it. The little girl flips her hair as the girls on TV and proceeds to change the channel. Next appears p!nk in a suit and sings “What happened to the dream of a girl president She's dancing in the video next to 50 Cent,” next of course appeared p!nk dancing her butt next to the rapper 50 cent. The rest of the video continues to ridicule the life of young women today that don’t really go far in life or spend their life fixing their bodies. The point of the video is to show how young women today care more tanning, being skinny and getting plastic surgery. P!nk does a really good job at portraying her thoughts about the stupid things girls so such as become bulimic just to stay skinny, spray tan just to be darker, and degrade themselves to be half naked on a public music video. I clearly see P!nk’s view in all this nonsense going on in our generation. “I'm so glad that I'll never fit in That will never be me Outcasts and girls with ambition That's what I wanna see” P!nk argues. Her claim justifies how much she wants to see smart girls not trying to fit the “perfect picture” but try to use their traits that they are born with for the better. It seems as if girls do these things to impress boys or to feel better about themselves but I think P!nk wrote this song and made this video to show girls how stupid doing those things are. Girls should not humiliate themselves for other people. A lot of the things girls now a days can cause skin caner by tanning, serious eating disorders and dishonor themselves by being put out in public in the wrong situations or even have problems with our health due to plastic surgery. This music video is funny, yet it teaches valuable lesson of how silly girls look by trying to be something they aren’t. The lesson that should be learned by watching this video is that we should love ourselves for who we are not who we think we should be. “Stupid girls” is dedicated to all those insecure girls who think they have to fix themselves of think they are better than others. In reality we are all the same and it should not matter if we are fat, skinny, dark, rich or poor. In the end, we are all woman with different bodies but we were are all born in our unique way for a reason and we shouldn’t have to change it just to please other people.
1984 - By Apple
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8&feature=related
The vast majority of people in the US watch television and absorb the commercials without giving much thought to the actual reasoning behind the careful placement of everything that is actually going on in the ad. In his essay “On Reading Video Text” Robert Scholes suggests it’s both interesting and important to give it some thought on a deeper level. Scholes believes video has a unique manipulative power over the way we view it. In using certain colors, music even culturally understood narratives as an undertone the videographers can conjure particular emotions in us. Scholes quantifies the use of cultural narrative as “The process through which video texts confirm viewers by their ideological positions and reassure them as to their membership in a collective cultural body”. Scholes then describes a Budweiser commercial in which a black umpire rises up and “makes it”. Scholes goes on to explain in detail the reasoning behind why we understand the commercial and why we side with the umpire. The main reason the general public can understand this commercial Scholes accredits to the fact that it’s a cliché story of the American dream.
With Scholes’ ideas of breaking down video texts in mind I recently watched a classic apple commercial. It was quite interesting after breaking it down piece by piece. In this commercial they were selling more than just a product but an idea. The commercial opened up with a drab colorless group of people marching together in perfect rhythm down a narrow corridor. The people who were marching had a very inhuman quality to them, appearing not as people but as automatons marching mindlessly. In the background there is a seemingly brainwashing voice spouting out promises of unity and idealistic benefits of conformity. The voice then materializes in the form of a face on a screen being not only watched but stared at by the marchers of the previous scene. The video then cuts to a woman carrying a sledgehammer and clad in the only color of the entire commercial other than a shade of gray, a beacon of hope, our savior. The woman is being chased by soldiers in riot gear, the strong arm of the dictatorship that is the man on the screen. The woman arrives to the screen, heaves her sledge-hammer and in a flash of brilliant light the over-mind is gone, the heroine has prevailed in saving us from the clutches of big brother. After the commotion of the commercial there is a voice stating “On January 24th apple will release Macintosh and you’ll see why 1984 won’t be 1984”.
The reference at this point is quite obviously “1984” a novel by George Orwell, a novel which depicts people conforming to follow an over-mind known as “Big Brother”. The commercial is instantly identifiable because the novel has become commonplace in high school English classes and is a culturally renowned work in the US. It is because we have this understanding that the commercial makes sense.
The commercial is designed to put ourselves into the role of the automaton, waiting helplessly to be saved by Mactintosh (the hammer-wielding heroine). I do find it kind of ironic that the point they’re trying to sell is that if we don’t want to become automatons, slaves to conformity, we should all go out and buy a mac. Irony aside the commercial still had a powerful quality to it, placing the viewing in their role in society. I’m not going out to buy a mac today, I’m a PC guy, I guess big brother will be watching me, but it was an interesting piece of film nonetheless.
The vast majority of people in the US watch television and absorb the commercials without giving much thought to the actual reasoning behind the careful placement of everything that is actually going on in the ad. In his essay “On Reading Video Text” Robert Scholes suggests it’s both interesting and important to give it some thought on a deeper level. Scholes believes video has a unique manipulative power over the way we view it. In using certain colors, music even culturally understood narratives as an undertone the videographers can conjure particular emotions in us. Scholes quantifies the use of cultural narrative as “The process through which video texts confirm viewers by their ideological positions and reassure them as to their membership in a collective cultural body”. Scholes then describes a Budweiser commercial in which a black umpire rises up and “makes it”. Scholes goes on to explain in detail the reasoning behind why we understand the commercial and why we side with the umpire. The main reason the general public can understand this commercial Scholes accredits to the fact that it’s a cliché story of the American dream.
With Scholes’ ideas of breaking down video texts in mind I recently watched a classic apple commercial. It was quite interesting after breaking it down piece by piece. In this commercial they were selling more than just a product but an idea. The commercial opened up with a drab colorless group of people marching together in perfect rhythm down a narrow corridor. The people who were marching had a very inhuman quality to them, appearing not as people but as automatons marching mindlessly. In the background there is a seemingly brainwashing voice spouting out promises of unity and idealistic benefits of conformity. The voice then materializes in the form of a face on a screen being not only watched but stared at by the marchers of the previous scene. The video then cuts to a woman carrying a sledgehammer and clad in the only color of the entire commercial other than a shade of gray, a beacon of hope, our savior. The woman is being chased by soldiers in riot gear, the strong arm of the dictatorship that is the man on the screen. The woman arrives to the screen, heaves her sledge-hammer and in a flash of brilliant light the over-mind is gone, the heroine has prevailed in saving us from the clutches of big brother. After the commotion of the commercial there is a voice stating “On January 24th apple will release Macintosh and you’ll see why 1984 won’t be 1984”.
The reference at this point is quite obviously “1984” a novel by George Orwell, a novel which depicts people conforming to follow an over-mind known as “Big Brother”. The commercial is instantly identifiable because the novel has become commonplace in high school English classes and is a culturally renowned work in the US. It is because we have this understanding that the commercial makes sense.
The commercial is designed to put ourselves into the role of the automaton, waiting helplessly to be saved by Mactintosh (the hammer-wielding heroine). I do find it kind of ironic that the point they’re trying to sell is that if we don’t want to become automatons, slaves to conformity, we should all go out and buy a mac. Irony aside the commercial still had a powerful quality to it, placing the viewing in their role in society. I’m not going out to buy a mac today, I’m a PC guy, I guess big brother will be watching me, but it was an interesting piece of film nonetheless.
Commerical
Part 1
When watching commercials, I sometimes thing, what is the point? Or why was this put in here? Now from reading Robert Scholes article, On Reading a Video Text, I understand that everything in a commercial or advertisement has its reason. Even just the random dog in the corner has its part in making the commercial what it is. Scholes in his essay said “Others include narrativity and what I should like to call, at least tentatively, cultural reinforcement… By cultural reinforcement, I mean the process through which video texts confirm viewers in their ideological positions and reassure them as to their membership in a collective cultural body.” By this I feel he means that things in commercials are pit there because it relates back to our culture and just by living in this country you will get the commercial.
Part 2
The commercial I watched was the new Super bowl commercial about the new Chrysler car. This commercial features Eminem. It starts off in Detroit and talks about how as a city it has gone to hell and back. This commercial also reimburses the fact of American made. In the end of the ad it says “Imported from America”; this is trying to show that this is made in America for Americans.
This ad sells the fact that it isn’t being made overseas or by the Chinese, but made in the heart of America, in our own backyard. This is effective because it shows that people are making it for us and in our country. Today, you can’t find many products like cars, which are made in America. Another thing it makes you think about is that your car is made here and Americans made it. So, in our hard economy, Chrysler is creating jobs in America when other car companies are outsourcing to Japan or somewhere else that is not America.
One part in the commercial is says “When it comes to luxury, Its as much about where it’s from as who it’s for” this comes back to being made in America and made the right way in America. It makes you think that you don’t know who your car is made by and in what conditions with other car companies.
This ad requires you to know that Chrysler is an only America car company, but from the commercial you end up getting that information, so you don’t actually have to know it.
Newport Cigarette commercial
Newport Cigarette Commercial
On “Reading a video text,” by Robert Scholes, he talks about the cultural knowledge that we viewers, already know even when we haven’t experienced whatever it may be at all. For example, we know that horses or dogs have nothing to do with alcohol or that cigarettes have nothing to do with smoking. Yet, some people still fall for it. Scholes also says that video text come in many different forms and have a different affect for each one. “Close-ups position us where we could never stand. Slow motion allows us an extraordinary penetration into the mechanics of movement, and, combined with music; lends a balletic grace to ordinary forms of locomotion.”(Scholes) This quote is basically saying that those who produce the adds, add on many different kind of focus. When the ad is in slow music with some maybe melodic music in the background, it can lead us to have maybe a different view on the ad.
I had chosen an ad called, “Newport Cigarette Commercial,” which was trying to make people buy Newport Cigarettes instead of any other brand. In this ad, they showed a woman at a beach with another man smoking Newport Cigarettes. The woman was wearing a short dress and looked all fresh. The Cultural Knowledge in this ad was the things that every person already knew even when they don’t even smoke cigarettes. First of all, people know that by smoking Newport cigarettes, you won’t be “fresh,” or you won’t have a beautiful woman or even be on the beach. To the man that was walking by the billboard, he thought that the billboard was alive because it was singing to him and the bus driver that came to pick him up, thought he was a bit crazy.
The ad is trying to make the audience believe that no other brand is better than the Newport brand and no other brand is fresher or tastier and that attractive women smoke the Newport cigarettes as well. What I don’t like about any ad not only this one in particular, is that whatever they are trying to sell, whether it be cigarettes or alcohol, they make it all seem so good and innocent. But when you look on the negative side of everything, these things can actually kill you or give cancer.
I think that Robert Scholes had done an excellent job with his article because he talks about the things people already know without having to experience because we seem to be constantly around all of these thing and know enough about them. He also talks about the common sense that people as well. Everything that he had said in the article come together in this ad because it proves to you that by adding certain music, people, beauty, etc., they can grab peoples attention and so the next time a person is in the store, they think about the commercial they’ve seen and end up buying that product. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPCMnZ-1HNE
On “Reading a video text,” by Robert Scholes, he talks about the cultural knowledge that we viewers, already know even when we haven’t experienced whatever it may be at all. For example, we know that horses or dogs have nothing to do with alcohol or that cigarettes have nothing to do with smoking. Yet, some people still fall for it. Scholes also says that video text come in many different forms and have a different affect for each one. “Close-ups position us where we could never stand. Slow motion allows us an extraordinary penetration into the mechanics of movement, and, combined with music; lends a balletic grace to ordinary forms of locomotion.”(Scholes) This quote is basically saying that those who produce the adds, add on many different kind of focus. When the ad is in slow music with some maybe melodic music in the background, it can lead us to have maybe a different view on the ad.
I had chosen an ad called, “Newport Cigarette Commercial,” which was trying to make people buy Newport Cigarettes instead of any other brand. In this ad, they showed a woman at a beach with another man smoking Newport Cigarettes. The woman was wearing a short dress and looked all fresh. The Cultural Knowledge in this ad was the things that every person already knew even when they don’t even smoke cigarettes. First of all, people know that by smoking Newport cigarettes, you won’t be “fresh,” or you won’t have a beautiful woman or even be on the beach. To the man that was walking by the billboard, he thought that the billboard was alive because it was singing to him and the bus driver that came to pick him up, thought he was a bit crazy.
The ad is trying to make the audience believe that no other brand is better than the Newport brand and no other brand is fresher or tastier and that attractive women smoke the Newport cigarettes as well. What I don’t like about any ad not only this one in particular, is that whatever they are trying to sell, whether it be cigarettes or alcohol, they make it all seem so good and innocent. But when you look on the negative side of everything, these things can actually kill you or give cancer.
I think that Robert Scholes had done an excellent job with his article because he talks about the things people already know without having to experience because we seem to be constantly around all of these thing and know enough about them. He also talks about the common sense that people as well. Everything that he had said in the article come together in this ad because it proves to you that by adding certain music, people, beauty, etc., they can grab peoples attention and so the next time a person is in the store, they think about the commercial they’ve seen and end up buying that product. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPCMnZ-1HNE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)