I like that the media is hit hard by people’s criticism and demands. We should have a voice in what we’re exposed to, especially in our homes- on our computers and televisions. I’m also guilty of the avoidance strategy, thinking if I don’t let the bad influences in, they can’t hurt me. I see, though, that being educated, informed and proactive are important steps I can take to deal with what I encounter. The finding that media literacy education should be geared towards adults is valid. Yes, our children need this too, but this reminds me of the oxygen mask on the airplane. We have to “secure” ourselves before we can help others. The points made in Kim Moody’s paper are commendable.
The fact that learning is social supports direct instruction of media literacy in classrooms, as suggested by Hobbs. The author’s reasons for integrating media literacy into core curriculum are practical and make good sense. Her reasons for education funding to come from media sources make sense too, but unlikely to lead to anything viable. That would be indicative of companies that care and the whole reason we need to create awareness is because they don’t care. Media production by students is a wonderful notion and I see that students have much to gain (yes, they are learning knowledge and skills in the process) but funding is a real issue… so before anyone mandates this, it should be noted that we have to fund it.
Last but not least, I’ll say that I was astonished to read some of the statistics Kilbourne reported about drinking. Is it really true that legal drinkers only drink 60% of the alcohol sold? It seems very difficult to get an accurate number on this matter. The seven myths don’t surprise me, but the numbers, well, I’m shocked.
Jean Kilbourne’s commitment to exposing the practices of the media is impressive. I found her lecture to be impressive and impacting. I look forward to exploring more of her work.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Racism and Media Messages
Oregon is the whitest place I have lived. Growing up just a few hours from the Mexico border, San Antonio was more than 50% Hispanic in the 1970’s and Dallas and Houston are true melting pots, representing people of every background.
For four years, I taught in a racially tense school. It was a railroad town gone broke, with poor white kids who’d been there for generations. It was also a southern suburb of Dallas, an appealing area for Blacks who wanted to move out of the city. As so, the high school had about 1,000 White students, 1,000 Black students and 500 Hispanics. I was amazed at how mean the Black students were to each other. As Cook of the Boston Globe indicates, skin tone can be a huge factor in how people treat each other (his piece). In my school and by their Black peers, darker students were viewed as dumber, meaner, and somehow lesser. This totally blew me away. This seemed to be more of a Black-to-Black issue, but it could be that I was missing something. I often examined my attitudes and actions in that setting, but could not see that I shared the same faulty standards. I’d been around dark-skinned blacks in Mississippi before, but because they we all very dark skinned, I’d never seen this issue.
In a place like Oregon, though, where the Black population is minimal and mirrors the University of Colorado study summarized online, one might expect stereotyping to be somewhat automatic. Going off of limited or non-existent personal experience, how can people be fair? Don’ they have to rely on a faulty understanding, in the form of stereotypes, generalizations and falsely contrived notions? I, for one, doubt that the findings of the study are really representative of the truth about anything. If you were to ask me to match personal histories (or limited personal scenarios) with the right face out of 40 images, I’d tell you that the activity was ridiculous and walk away. It hard to guess someone’s age, let alone their life history! When we ask people to stereotype, they do. The 97% White undergraduate audience was put in an unfair position and they made unfair judgments. Duh!
As for the myths perpetuated in advertising piece, there’s probably more truth. People aren’t as happy, secure, confident, or thin as they would like to be, so they are happy to believe corporations care and product (and if that fails guns will do the trick) and that they can be more satisfied, confident, appealing, and wealthy if they have certain resources (even deodorant and insurance).
The bottom line is comes in the section on communication history, where it’s recommended that we look at images as a tool used to communicate with us. Like language, there are careful choices, edits and positioning that maximizes intended effects. We should be looking at images on several levels and analyzing who sends the message and why. There’s a lot to this idea of media literacy. I’m learning that I have more to learn and that the need to apply critical thinking about the visual messages I receive is vast.
For four years, I taught in a racially tense school. It was a railroad town gone broke, with poor white kids who’d been there for generations. It was also a southern suburb of Dallas, an appealing area for Blacks who wanted to move out of the city. As so, the high school had about 1,000 White students, 1,000 Black students and 500 Hispanics. I was amazed at how mean the Black students were to each other. As Cook of the Boston Globe indicates, skin tone can be a huge factor in how people treat each other (his piece). In my school and by their Black peers, darker students were viewed as dumber, meaner, and somehow lesser. This totally blew me away. This seemed to be more of a Black-to-Black issue, but it could be that I was missing something. I often examined my attitudes and actions in that setting, but could not see that I shared the same faulty standards. I’d been around dark-skinned blacks in Mississippi before, but because they we all very dark skinned, I’d never seen this issue.
In a place like Oregon, though, where the Black population is minimal and mirrors the University of Colorado study summarized online, one might expect stereotyping to be somewhat automatic. Going off of limited or non-existent personal experience, how can people be fair? Don’ they have to rely on a faulty understanding, in the form of stereotypes, generalizations and falsely contrived notions? I, for one, doubt that the findings of the study are really representative of the truth about anything. If you were to ask me to match personal histories (or limited personal scenarios) with the right face out of 40 images, I’d tell you that the activity was ridiculous and walk away. It hard to guess someone’s age, let alone their life history! When we ask people to stereotype, they do. The 97% White undergraduate audience was put in an unfair position and they made unfair judgments. Duh!
As for the myths perpetuated in advertising piece, there’s probably more truth. People aren’t as happy, secure, confident, or thin as they would like to be, so they are happy to believe corporations care and product (and if that fails guns will do the trick) and that they can be more satisfied, confident, appealing, and wealthy if they have certain resources (even deodorant and insurance).
The bottom line is comes in the section on communication history, where it’s recommended that we look at images as a tool used to communicate with us. Like language, there are careful choices, edits and positioning that maximizes intended effects. We should be looking at images on several levels and analyzing who sends the message and why. There’s a lot to this idea of media literacy. I’m learning that I have more to learn and that the need to apply critical thinking about the visual messages I receive is vast.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
We're Wearing A Bullseye
I'm not so excited about it being up to advertisers to monitor themselves. According to Stephanie Clifford's piece in The New York Times, there is a call for transparency in terms of letting consumers know what advertisers are collecting, yet there isn't any practical consideration given to the idea of consumer control. I do not agree that, "legislation is a pretty blunt instrument," as Mr Ingis, a lawyer for the trade groups, notes. Legislation is one piece of the checks and balances system that makes a democracy work. However, it is not very effective without any enforcement. Even though Yahoo, Facebook and other media executives are talking with the FTC, the average consumer's interests are unlikely to win out.
New crawling spies targeting teens speak to the way we're moving. The Pulse program discussed online by Shannon Proudfoot goes to show there's no end for the desire to have our data. Our topics of conversation are being recorded and sold; shouldn't we be paid? While I appreciate that teens were quoted in the story, it is our job to protect them. Collecting their conversations in real time is a fascinating capability that should never be used!
New crawling spies targeting teens speak to the way we're moving. The Pulse program discussed online by Shannon Proudfoot goes to show there's no end for the desire to have our data. Our topics of conversation are being recorded and sold; shouldn't we be paid? While I appreciate that teens were quoted in the story, it is our job to protect them. Collecting their conversations in real time is a fascinating capability that should never be used!
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Commercials And The Youngest Among Us
I’ve often viewed commercials as a waste of money, as a way that advertisers remind us that their products are part of their world, almost as benign public service announcements. Now, of course, I realize my view as naïve totally inaccurate and I appreciate learning the tricks of the trade.
The earworm idea (discussed in Tim Faulkner’s piece) is totally brilliant. This is literally a sound link to our brains, targeting memories and other sensory connections with the advertised product. A strange phenomenon indeed, but its effectiveness is amazing. A friend of mind posted on Facebook that her six year old daughter was repeatedly singing the “Nationwide is on your side” jingle. Hmmm. Will this audio imprint stick with the young lady until she is buying her own insurance policies?
As I type this, I’m sitting next to my son, who is watching Saturday morning cartoons on the CW network. This is a new thing for us, as I’ve had him watch DVDs only until January of this year. He watches a little TV now, but with mommy at his side. In just one segment, we saw commercials for Fruit Loops, Chucky Cheese, Aliens in the Attic (movie), Nesquik, toontown.com, and the CW vault (a list of all of their kids’ shows),
I’ve interjected things as we watch, saying, “This is called an advertisement and they are trying to get you to buy their product,” or “This is not the show you were watching anymore, this is a break,” but my son doesn’t respond with anything. He is clearly mesmerized. And when the show comes back on, he says, “Hey mom, the show is starting,” and he doesn’t seem to recognize it as a continuation of the show he was watching, but a new show each time.
The impact of these well crafted ads and jingles has to vary, but I am inclined to think they impact the youngest (least educated) among us most. Awareness I can raise but what else can I do to minimize the earworms in my sweet little boy’s brain? Do they make him more American? Culturally connected? Or do they make him a target? A corporate controlled slave? I’m struggling with how to see this…
The earworm idea (discussed in Tim Faulkner’s piece) is totally brilliant. This is literally a sound link to our brains, targeting memories and other sensory connections with the advertised product. A strange phenomenon indeed, but its effectiveness is amazing. A friend of mind posted on Facebook that her six year old daughter was repeatedly singing the “Nationwide is on your side” jingle. Hmmm. Will this audio imprint stick with the young lady until she is buying her own insurance policies?
As I type this, I’m sitting next to my son, who is watching Saturday morning cartoons on the CW network. This is a new thing for us, as I’ve had him watch DVDs only until January of this year. He watches a little TV now, but with mommy at his side. In just one segment, we saw commercials for Fruit Loops, Chucky Cheese, Aliens in the Attic (movie), Nesquik, toontown.com, and the CW vault (a list of all of their kids’ shows),
I’ve interjected things as we watch, saying, “This is called an advertisement and they are trying to get you to buy their product,” or “This is not the show you were watching anymore, this is a break,” but my son doesn’t respond with anything. He is clearly mesmerized. And when the show comes back on, he says, “Hey mom, the show is starting,” and he doesn’t seem to recognize it as a continuation of the show he was watching, but a new show each time.
The impact of these well crafted ads and jingles has to vary, but I am inclined to think they impact the youngest (least educated) among us most. Awareness I can raise but what else can I do to minimize the earworms in my sweet little boy’s brain? Do they make him more American? Culturally connected? Or do they make him a target? A corporate controlled slave? I’m struggling with how to see this…
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
The Munchies
Advertising is making us fat. Great! That’s just great. I appreciate that the 2008 Yale study says that awareness will help, but I also agree that we have a lot to learn about how we can protect ourselves and our children. The lengths that food advertisers will go through to entice us, according a Media Awareness Network handout, are amazing. If anyone ever told me that motor oil or glue would make me want to munch, I’d beg to differ. But I see now that I’ve been duped! The idea of mindless eating was verified in a HealthDay News article. It’s less about will power and bad choices and more about responding to stimuli; the fact that adults and kids are both susceptible is not encouraging.
The article did say that the junk food ads led viewers to snack on unhealthy foods. Perhaps if we replaced those ads with images of healthy foods and mealtimes, we’d begin to have more respect for what we put in our bodies. That’s the silver lining I suppose. It appears that we’re pretty willing to accept what we see, so we need to gain more control over what we’re subjected to.
I really enjoyed the burger dressing video in class. It’s all subtle stuff, but there’s a lot of it and it adds up.
In a perfect world, the values of corporate America and the people would align. Our society would be for the people by the people. But, clearly, idealism is far from reality. The need for a shift is strong, though, and I think our overall health and wellness are weighty enough to warrant a shift. Some markets have more "fair" advertising, but we need to put the gloves back on; without them, things are too ugly.
The article did say that the junk food ads led viewers to snack on unhealthy foods. Perhaps if we replaced those ads with images of healthy foods and mealtimes, we’d begin to have more respect for what we put in our bodies. That’s the silver lining I suppose. It appears that we’re pretty willing to accept what we see, so we need to gain more control over what we’re subjected to.
I really enjoyed the burger dressing video in class. It’s all subtle stuff, but there’s a lot of it and it adds up.
In a perfect world, the values of corporate America and the people would align. Our society would be for the people by the people. But, clearly, idealism is far from reality. The need for a shift is strong, though, and I think our overall health and wellness are weighty enough to warrant a shift. Some markets have more "fair" advertising, but we need to put the gloves back on; without them, things are too ugly.
Media Truth
The truth can vary, depending upon who tells it, which part or parts, and from what angle. My mom works for Business Wire and through her, I have gained a unique understanding of the news media. What her company does is format and release news from publicly held companies to the wire services, which cater to specific markets. From there, news agencies pick up stories they want to cover and deliver the news to the people. Some information has to be released by companies because of legal and stockholder obligations. Other information is sent to the wire services because individuals or companies just want the information to be picked up and presented to the masses.
When a news agency decides to pick up a press release, the information is in a specific format. The journalists are able to rework what they select however they like, but the key is that they selected the information. Medical researchers may release information that can be easily misunderstood by the public, as Michael Winter notes; however, those researchers may be required to release their findings because of grant or other funding stipulations. Again, it is the news media who selects and formats the information we, the people, see.
As for the abundant “green” claims Traci Watson tackles in her USA Today piece, can we be surprised? People historically don’t follow rules that aren’t enforced. The 1992 FTC requirements are no better than the paper they are printed on if it’s nobody’s job to enforce them. Our capitalistic society allows our corporations to do anything to make a buck. If we want to limit what they can do, we have to put teeth in our laws.
When a news agency decides to pick up a press release, the information is in a specific format. The journalists are able to rework what they select however they like, but the key is that they selected the information. Medical researchers may release information that can be easily misunderstood by the public, as Michael Winter notes; however, those researchers may be required to release their findings because of grant or other funding stipulations. Again, it is the news media who selects and formats the information we, the people, see.
As for the abundant “green” claims Traci Watson tackles in her USA Today piece, can we be surprised? People historically don’t follow rules that aren’t enforced. The 1992 FTC requirements are no better than the paper they are printed on if it’s nobody’s job to enforce them. Our capitalistic society allows our corporations to do anything to make a buck. If we want to limit what they can do, we have to put teeth in our laws.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Secret Strategies
The Secret deodorant ads that I browsed mentioned a couple of the reasons I have for being a loyal consumer. It works well and it lasts long. One of the ads eluded to it smelling good. None of the ads named my other reasons: it’s reliable, low in aluminum, and it comes off of clothes and skin easily.
The ads were all a little different in how they appealed to my identity. One gave me permission to “Be funky” and reminded me I should have this product, “because you’re hot.” Another ad showed a shimmering product with an elegant border and artistic design with the printed descriptor “flawless. ,” appealing more to my intimate nature, suggesting an intimate bond with the product. In both ads, there was a great deal of attention to mood, color, lighting, and tone.
Not a lot of images were available online and the Secret website was surprisingly short on images. But, I remember growing up with Secret ads and noticing that the ads were slanted depending on the magazine and target audience ages. I recall finding the ads for older women less appealing, even laughable, compared towards the ones geared for teens. This indicates that they do a good job of identifying the target audience, because now, as one of those “older women” I still respond favorably to their ads.
The ads were all a little different in how they appealed to my identity. One gave me permission to “Be funky” and reminded me I should have this product, “because you’re hot.” Another ad showed a shimmering product with an elegant border and artistic design with the printed descriptor “flawless. ,” appealing more to my intimate nature, suggesting an intimate bond with the product. In both ads, there was a great deal of attention to mood, color, lighting, and tone.
Not a lot of images were available online and the Secret website was surprisingly short on images. But, I remember growing up with Secret ads and noticing that the ads were slanted depending on the magazine and target audience ages. I recall finding the ads for older women less appealing, even laughable, compared towards the ones geared for teens. This indicates that they do a good job of identifying the target audience, because now, as one of those “older women” I still respond favorably to their ads.
Ethical Disimination Torture Photos?
Randy Cohen’s piece in The New York Times does a good job tackling the issue of the power of pictures and how they influence us. I do not agree with his conclusion but I appreciate his thinking and his address of an important, ethical topic.
I think it is ok, even good, judgment for our government to withhold these violent and disturbing images from the press and the common citizens. I also think this is different than the government keeping the people from having a better understanding of the situation.
The pictures up for discussion are pieces of evidence related to violent crimes. They depict and convict people of power mistreating incarcerated citizens and that is political. They also depict beating, humiliation, inhumane violence and the like. I can find no good reason for people to view disturbing violent crimes. Knowing that they occur is important; the people should experience emotion and react to such incidents.
These torture photos should be seen by the jury or the judge or whoever is responsible for bringing the abusers to justice. They are pieces of damning evidence and should be viewed as such. They, like all criminal evidence, are legal documentation and should be viewed in a legal courtroom.
Let’s look at a parallel civilian situation where power is not a factor. A rapists or murderer video tapes his crimes, he records his violent and disgusting act. Would it be wrong of him to post those videos online for the public to view? It would be criminal and wrong, right? Would it be wrong of his friend to post them online? You bet. How about the prosecutor in the case? Yes, I think so.
Cohen gets it right when he discusses how, “photographs can communicate so movingly,” and I share the his passion about having an open, transparent government. Yet, in this case, I feel that the words are enough, that the facts are sufficient to rouse enough public awareness, emotion and reaction that the criminal acts of torture needed not be viewed by the masses but reserved for the courtroom and used as tools for justice (“Neda, Obama and the power of pictures”).
I think it is ok, even good, judgment for our government to withhold these violent and disturbing images from the press and the common citizens. I also think this is different than the government keeping the people from having a better understanding of the situation.
The pictures up for discussion are pieces of evidence related to violent crimes. They depict and convict people of power mistreating incarcerated citizens and that is political. They also depict beating, humiliation, inhumane violence and the like. I can find no good reason for people to view disturbing violent crimes. Knowing that they occur is important; the people should experience emotion and react to such incidents.
These torture photos should be seen by the jury or the judge or whoever is responsible for bringing the abusers to justice. They are pieces of damning evidence and should be viewed as such. They, like all criminal evidence, are legal documentation and should be viewed in a legal courtroom.
Let’s look at a parallel civilian situation where power is not a factor. A rapists or murderer video tapes his crimes, he records his violent and disgusting act. Would it be wrong of him to post those videos online for the public to view? It would be criminal and wrong, right? Would it be wrong of his friend to post them online? You bet. How about the prosecutor in the case? Yes, I think so.
Cohen gets it right when he discusses how, “photographs can communicate so movingly,” and I share the his passion about having an open, transparent government. Yet, in this case, I feel that the words are enough, that the facts are sufficient to rouse enough public awareness, emotion and reaction that the criminal acts of torture needed not be viewed by the masses but reserved for the courtroom and used as tools for justice (“Neda, Obama and the power of pictures”).
Day 1: Media Messages
The first article is full of eye-opening commentary about the movies. I was surprised by all that I read! I loved the example of Australia resulting in tax breaks, tourism, and deals between corporations and country governments. There’s a whole spectrum of how media stuff works and how it’s dealt with, even the messages that are supposed to be suppressed.
The importance of emotional appeal presented in “The Brand Story Web Marketing Process” was as surprising to me. The effort that advertisers make to get a laugh, a tear, a trip down memory lane- it’s all extraordinary. Just last night, I saw a minute of Extra! And they were talking about the making of Michael’s videos and how many millions of us sat down to watch the video releases of “Thriller” and “Black and White.” Having just talked about media ownership and branches, this made me a little mad. They do indeed care how I feel, they prey on those feelings to get my money!
I experienced a sort of shock and awe as I read about “the potential for a network to censor itself when it comes to producing tough stories on its parent company” in “Mouse-ke-fear” and I can’t imagine how Dr. Bucy was able to keep quiet about the Disney example while we were in class. My skin is still crawling… It’s not the news, or the suppression of it, but the amount of slime-y effort that bothers me so.
The blurry lines of entertainment and advertising discussed in “Commercials You Can’t Zap” and “The Medium Is A Soup Commercial” aren’t any less disturbing. Audiences don’t complain, one author notes, but why, I wonder? Why don’t we say we don’t like to be led, directed, marketed to- whatever? There are so many products and so many choices, maybe people somehow appreciate guidance?
I try really hard not to watch TV and not to expose my son to it, but I see this is not enough. The limited amount that we take in has “the bad” elements. Being a consumer is unavoidable, as our every public experience is geared towards the fact that we have purchasing power. Is this a capitalistic value? Is it democratic? Am I just moronic to think that things should be another way?
We’re teaching these subtle (or not so) marketing techniques to the rest of the world. People are watching and mirroring America. Why are we running in this slime-y direction with full force and what can I do about it? Literacy and awareness- is that all I can do for myself and my family or is there something I can do to effect the course we’re so clearly traveling?
The importance of emotional appeal presented in “The Brand Story Web Marketing Process” was as surprising to me. The effort that advertisers make to get a laugh, a tear, a trip down memory lane- it’s all extraordinary. Just last night, I saw a minute of Extra! And they were talking about the making of Michael’s videos and how many millions of us sat down to watch the video releases of “Thriller” and “Black and White.” Having just talked about media ownership and branches, this made me a little mad. They do indeed care how I feel, they prey on those feelings to get my money!
I experienced a sort of shock and awe as I read about “the potential for a network to censor itself when it comes to producing tough stories on its parent company” in “Mouse-ke-fear” and I can’t imagine how Dr. Bucy was able to keep quiet about the Disney example while we were in class. My skin is still crawling… It’s not the news, or the suppression of it, but the amount of slime-y effort that bothers me so.
The blurry lines of entertainment and advertising discussed in “Commercials You Can’t Zap” and “The Medium Is A Soup Commercial” aren’t any less disturbing. Audiences don’t complain, one author notes, but why, I wonder? Why don’t we say we don’t like to be led, directed, marketed to- whatever? There are so many products and so many choices, maybe people somehow appreciate guidance?
I try really hard not to watch TV and not to expose my son to it, but I see this is not enough. The limited amount that we take in has “the bad” elements. Being a consumer is unavoidable, as our every public experience is geared towards the fact that we have purchasing power. Is this a capitalistic value? Is it democratic? Am I just moronic to think that things should be another way?
We’re teaching these subtle (or not so) marketing techniques to the rest of the world. People are watching and mirroring America. Why are we running in this slime-y direction with full force and what can I do about it? Literacy and awareness- is that all I can do for myself and my family or is there something I can do to effect the course we’re so clearly traveling?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
