Commercial Deconstruction

Advertisements are everywhere and they desperately compete for our attention. Everywhere we look, attractive men and women draw us in to somehow inspire us to purchase their products. This attention-getting strategy is popular, and surely enough... IT WORKS!

Advertisements, in my opinion, should follow a basic code of ethics:
First and for-most, ads should avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
Also, the ad should be age friendly
And, the ad needs to have an understandable message or goal

Does the Quiznos advertisement above follow this code of ethics? Yes, for the most part. The advertisement does not stereotype and its overall goal is to sell their new sandwich; however, it does push the age friendly regulation. Obviously a six or seven year would not understand the strong sexual innuendo in the Quiznos advertisement, in spite of that, kids today are becoming wiser and wiser about sex every year because sex is everywhere, it is only a matter of time before they figure it out.


I know you have heard it before... SEX SELLS! The commercial above is a prime example of a sexual innuendo, meaning it says sex without actually saying it blatantly. Because it is human nature to be curious about sex, the sex appeal increases the effectiveness of an ad or commercial because it attracts the customer’s attention. Sex in advertising has stirred controversy for many years, advertiser have to be careful when incorporating it in a campaign. Also, the sexual content in advertising must be appropriate to the product category and have a proper underlying message, thus ad campaigns turn to innuendos because they are not actually "saying" sex or "selling" sex, but merely using the sex topic to sell there product or reveal their message... whatever that may be?

An innuendo is an indirect intimation about a person or thing, esp. of a disparaging or a derogatory nature.
The following link reveals these innuendos:
http://inventorspot.com/articles/ads_prove_sex_sells_5576

Television: Woman's Image

The Third Wave of Feminism

The month of March is the time to celebrate and appreciate the mothers, sisters, and daughters of America. Back in the old days in traditional America, women used to stay home to cook, clean, and take care of the kids; men where the bread winners. As time moved forward women continued their journey up through the social chain. The 1960's marked the beginning of a movement of women's rights and feminism. From that point on women have become more powerful and influential in society. Women have become more than housekeepers and maids, today women have integrated their way into and beyond all professions across the nation.

The link below provides a date by date timeline of women's rights movement in the United States:
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline2.html






As far as television and movies, women have become very important and successful throughout the industry. Some have changed the direction of television, others have also had a temendous influence on women's success throughout the media world. A prime example of this is represented by the show Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Buffy marked the third wave of feminism in women's history.






The link below provides an article on the three waves of femanism:
http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/6236_Chapter_1_Krolokke_2nd_Rev_Final_Pdf.pdf

In the Journal of Popular Culture Francis H Early said, "... Buffy as an open-image hero and Buffy (the program) as unfolding dramatic narrative, expose stereotypes and coded symbols that shore up a rigid war-influenced gender system in an attempt to chart new meanings for womanliness and manliness." Meaning that Buffy's strong female character changed the world of women's roles in media, and greatly influenced societies views of women.

See for yourself...


http://daringivens.home.mindspring.com/btps.html

The First Buffy movie premiered in 1992 and the show launched in the fall of 1997. Since Buffy the Vampire Slayer the view of women's role in society, as well as the stereotypical images of women are forever changed.

Newspapers

QUICKLY REACHING THEIR GRAVE



Newspapers are going down the drain due to their strong competition... the internet! What happened to the good old days when families would gather around the radio to wait for their weekly news, or when people would walk out to the street every morning to grab their newspaper? The internet... thats what happened! Many people today are asking," is the internet replacing newspapers and other traditional forms of news?" Also, "if so, how is the internet replacing the newspapers," and "what are the affects of this transformation, are they good or bad?"



Is the Internet replacing newspapers?... YES
-Millions of people look directly toward instant online news to view thousands of images and video clips that pour over first-hand accounts written nearly as quickly as reporters could type them.
-Newspapers all through out the nation are experiencing more and more budget cuts and staff layoffs and most likely there will be even more over the next several years.
-The number of people who visit the New York Times website compared to those that buy the printed copy is already at a staggering disparity and is constantly increasing in margin.

What is the internet giving society that the newspapers cannot?
-It is easy to access, and practically free
-It allows people to express their opinions as well as news agencies sharing their stories
-It allows for a range of ideas to be read by a broader audience
-The option to easily comment on blogs, unlike newspapers, this gives people a way to filter out what they hear
-Gives everyone and anyone a role to play



What affects do the internet have on society?
-It wont be too much longer before waking up to the morning paper will no longer be available.
-Younger society is growing up in a growing digital world, thus the idea of the printed word is becoming obsolete
-It is forcing people to accept the new form of information provided, because soon it will be the only source of information

Check it out for yourself! The following links are to newspaper websites, they all reveal just how quick and easy news can be accessed today!

http://durangoherald.com/
http://www.nytimes.com/
http://www.cnn.com/

Or, check out this blog! See how blogs are becoming the new wave of information and advertisement in society!

http://perezhilton.com/

Sorry but... bye bye newspapers... you days are reaching the end!

Who Has Control?

"We must remember that in time of war what is said on the enemy’s side of the front is always propaganda, and what is said on our side of the front is truth and righteousness, the cause of humanity and a crusade for peace."
— Walter Lippmann

The previous quote is a perfect example of the media's view in america during war time. In the sense that American news is real coverage of the war and the enemies is just lies that are trying to deceive the viewer, this is also known as propaganda.

According to most dictionaries propaganda is information of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular cause or point of view.

The following link provides a movie called Control room. The movie is a prime example of war propaganda from the American military, traditional us media, as well as Al Jazeera (Arabic-language news network).

http://www.noujaimfilms.com/controlroom/site/01.html

After watching this movie i asked myself:

-What should news be doing during war time.
-What is the role of media during war time.
-Should there be boundaries to the coverage, if so, what should they be?

I believe that not receiving the whole truth is the same as being lied to. According to the movie Control room, the American news is extremely good at not telling the whole story. The American media seeks out stories and events within the war and picks out what is shown to the public. Broadcasting companies are very tactical in the sense that everything broadcasted is planned and shaped so that viewers get the "right" news. Are we as viewers not get the correct information or are we just not getting enough information?
Furthermore, I find that the U.S. Military often covers merely the problems of the war and is less likely to cover the results. However, I do respect the fact that during the war in Iraq the military's primary goal is not to provide news to the press but to liberate Iraq; even tho coverage of war is provided by the military. Besides, the military seeks to put out as much information about the country without putting the troops at risk.
Be that as it may, Al Jazeera has a different perspective on war propaganda and what is broadcasted. The movie Control room showed that Al Jazeera will cover any and everything this includes showing bloody children and dead American troops, because they believe that people need to see it. According to Al Jazeera media is not supposed to be targeted and that people like victory, not justification. They want to show that war has a human cost, that people need to be educated about democracy in order to wake the world up around them. They stated that "You cannot have war without propaganda."
I found the following quote quite interesting:
"American media is like a movie, all that is left from the war is just scripts."

This made me look at news a lil closer. What am I watching? Are these things True? Am i being lied to? Is this the right information, or just not enough information? I believe that news should truth in all its entirety, this includes the good and the bad, the dead and the alive, the victories and loses. However, news is more about forming public opinions and civic support!

Personally i am tired of the media distorting and exaggerating the information broadcasted; I am tired of the media using subjectivity and inaccuracy in order to receive my support. What about you?

War and Gore Seem to Go Hand-In-Hand

"Portraits of War: Unseen pictures, Untold Stories" by James Rainey addresses various questions pertaining to the war in Iraq and how its results are presented to the american public such as:

-Should newspapers and magazines be able to show such graphic photographs of the war?
-If so, to what extent?
-Does showing such things reveal the true nature of war, or does it just scare and offend people beyond explanation?
-Do Americans need to see the blood and gore to understand and appreciate those in the war?
-Some journalist say that their best work comes from the consequences of war, should journalists be able to show their best work, even if its contents are potentially disturbing and gruesome images of the dead american soldiers, dead Iraqi savilians and homeless Iraqi children?

In the article, Rainey talks about how Kathy Hernandez [the mother of Babbitt, who is the man on the stretcher in the picture above] who was greatly devistated by the photos use in newspapers, internet and magazines. She said, in tears, "...tacky, unprofessional and completely unnecessary." Hernandez wished that newspapers could have waited at least until after her son's funeral to run the photo. she goes on to says, " I do think it's an important thing, for people to see what goes on over there," and " it throws reality more in your face. And sometimes we can't help reality."

Chris Hondros is a veteran war photographer said, "there can be horrible images, but war is horrible and we need to understand that," he also said " I think if we are going to start a war, we ought to be willing to show the consequences of that war." Executive editor Dave Zeeck said, "We not only have the right, but the responsibility to run such photos."

At this point I would have to disagree with newspapers, magazines and the internet posting photographs such as the one above. I would have to agree with Fred Nelson, a photo editor for the Seattle Times, who said that readers are intelligent, and that they can figure it out "a photo of a bloody body in their face every time it happens."

Rainy talks about how journalists join soldiers in several life-threatening situations, but soldiers often loose their respect in the journalists as soon as they rush to the seen of the wounded and dead soldiers to take photographs.

The director of New York Times photography, Michele McNelly, said, "War kills men, women and children, and we would be remiss if we couldn't in some way show that this is what happens in war."
My question however, is when did articles suddenly become not enough? Are names and numbers not enough public recognition that we need to show a man bleeding to death, for the entire world to see.

Another interesting point in the article is when Rainey discusses Iraqi casualties and American casualties and their exposure. I thought that it was crazy how the newspapers, magazines and the internet can post hundreds of pictures of Iraqi casualties and sufferage and their is little-to-no backlash because these photos do not require notification of family members and can be transmitted without restrictions. But as soon a photo like the one of Babbit above, there was a huge backlash of numerous complaints about the "insensitivity" of the photograph.

The New World and its Primary Influence

I recently read an article called "A New Era in Play" by Reed Karaim. The article discusses the relationship of video games, virtual realities, online communities and other technologies and their effects on the world of today's children, both the positive and negative influences. The article goes on to ask the main question "... is the new world really a healthy one for children? How are video games, electronic toys and the rest of the chip-driven gizmos that fill modern life changing childhood?" Technology has created a new world and in this new world a new breed of children has risen.
The Entertainment Software Association revealed that "... nearly a third of Americans who play computer and/or video games are under eighteen." This can only mean that such sources of entertainment and technologies are being introduced at younger ages, right? After reading this statistic I could only stop and think about just how much time I really do spend in front of a screen. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation study, American kids ages eight to eighteen every week spend about forty-five hours in front of a screen on average. You know it is a concern when I child plays a video game or watches television nearly as much as he or she sleeps in a week, right?
Another commonly asked question is whether or not a child’s mental development is affected by the various electronic media, and if so, how much is the child affected, and in what ways? Jane Healy, an educational psychologist, believes that technology is “… wiring kids’ brains differently then in past generations.” Healy believes this because many video games today lack ways of practicing reasoning and focus more on basic tasks. She goes on to say that in many cases, children “ look like they’re solving problems on a video game, but they’re really just responding on a sensory level…” This quote caused be to think of an example: when you are shooting and killing the enemy soldiers on the game are you really thinking about what you are doing? My guess is no, you are simply reacting upon the current state in the game, you are simply focused on living to the next checkpoint; what problem could you possibly be trying to solve? Healy stated that the proper time to introduce a child to a computer screen is about the age of seven so the child’s brain has had sufficient enough time to properly develop.
Everything in this world has its pro and cons, right? Video games, television, and all technology serve just as much benefit as they do consequence. While some say that a child’s language development is hindered by such technologies, others would disagree. Some say that the best video games and electronic toys can spur a child’s imagination, and that even cell phones have the benefits of improving a child’s literacy. Do I agree with all of these things, yes and no? I agree with Karaim in that “…Digital Media should be only one part of a balanced life that includes exercise and reading.