Media Reflection

Over the course of this semester I have learned a fair amount about the effects of media consumption.  However,  I do not think that it has been anything life-altering.  Everything that we have learned about, such as how media degrades and underrepresents women, I have already known.  However, I do believe that I have become more conscious and aware of these things happening.  We were presented with a statistic about how only a minute number of ads are consciously processed by us in the course of our daily lives.  For me, personally, I think that this number has grown.  I obviously am not consciously aware of every single advertisement I see and its subsequent impacts, however, I am more observant of the subliminal and implicit messages of advertising now.  For example, the other day I saw a billboard advertising a dentist's office that offers solutions for crooked teeth.  Although it was not blatantly stated, I realized that that advertisement was telling viewers not only that they're teeth could be straightened, whitened, etc., but also that their current teeth are not good enough.  Although this is a minor example, and that could be detected by mostly everyone, I wouldn't normally pay attention to a billboard such as that.  I think what I can take away from that experience is that I actually was mindful and aware of that advertisement, and what the creators were actually trying to tell the audience, me included.  I think that this level of awareness is important to consistly have for a multitude of reasons.  The most signfiicant, in  my opinion, is so that you do not get entirely manipulated.  If you take advertisements at face value, without paying any extra attention to them, it is easier to simply go along with the messages being portrayed without criticizing and evaluating them.  Another reason is so that you do not impulsively waste your money.  I can definitely relate to this.  A lot of times I see an advertisement for something, or I'm at a store and remember seeing an appealing advertisement for a product, and use the superificial appeal of the advertisement to justify me buying that product.

Overall, the biggest thing I got out of keeping this blog was awareness.  Prior to keeping this blog, I didn't really care enough to take the time to process a commerical or advertisement after seeing it.  A lot of the time I wasn't even aware I was seeing an advertisement.  However, now, I'm much more aware of my surroundings, in regards to being bombarded with advertisements.  Instead of brushing aside advertisements, I might actually consciously think of the implicit messages that are being portrayed.

"Horror" Movies

Ok this is a serious problem.  What even are horror movies these days??  A prime example of the lack of plot development in so-called "horror movies" is in the film The Possession of Hannah Grace.  Leading up to watching this movie, I thought it would be sufficiently scary, judging from the small amount of the trailer I saw.  My expectation was wrong.  The movie was cheesy, and had generic "jump scares" that were completely predictable.  Take another movie, for example- Bird Box.  This movie, contrary to others' belief, was also full of predicatble jump scares.  The movie, in my opinion, lacked depth, plot-wise and just gave birth to too many memes.  The cast of well-known celebrities automatically intrigued people, but really the movie turned out to be quite dull for me.  Another question I have is why are cheesy shark movies such as The Meg and 47 Meters Down considered horror movies nowadays?!  They are not horror movies!!  Why is the "horror movie" label so easily and carelessly slapped on these poorly-made films?  Producers are only interested in money, and they know that anything labelled as "horror" will be clicked on by horror movie junkies without a second thought.

The question is what happened to horror movies?  Friday the 13th, Rosemary's Baby, Halloween, The Sixth Sense, The Silence of the Lambs....  The list goes on.  These films all had original plots that had depth and creativity.  So is the progressive boredom of horror movies signifying a loss in creativity?  If you think about it, a lot of movies (in general) that come out are sequels or reboots of older movies.  There is a minimal amount of new films that are not based on a previous one, that also have a solid plot.  Is our society losing its creativity?  I believe it is, for a multitude of reasons, the main one being media.  Social media, and media in general, compromises our creativity by giving us an easy distraction that we can constantly return to. 

              

MissRepresentation: Symbolic Annihilation of Women

There is something that is severly being under-represented in media: women.  Sure, we see a sufficient amount of women who are portrayed as the ideal object for a man.  However, that is the only version of a woman that is being shown.  When women are shown in media, they are exhibited as weak, dependent on men, needing protection, and oftentimes sexual objects.  Where are the powerful, independent women seeking societal justice?  Where are the women who don't need a man to rescue them? 

The answer is simple: they're almost nonexistent in the media.  These strong, powerful women pose a threat to the masculinity of the male population.  The 97% of media that is owned by men shy away from portraying liberated and self-sufficent women.  This sends the wrong messages to not only women, but also to males, mainly young boys who are developing individual thoughts and perceptions of the world and women.  The symbolic annihilation of women sends the message to the female audience that they should be congruent to the women who are portrayed in media, and if they're not, they're simply not good enough.  The message that is sent to young boys is that they are the powerful ones, and it is their responsibility to rescue and protect women, and women are here for sexualization.  Thus, the power dynamic between genders is perpetuated and enforced.  Will it ever be obliterated?  What would it take to do so?

Although there have been steps taken to minimalize the severity of the power dynamic, it would take a lot more to fully realize the meaning of equality between everyone. 

                            

Symbolic Annihilation Article

Passive Responses to Cyber Bullying

Cyber bullying happens all the time.  It can be blatant, or it can be less obvious.  In both situations, assertive responses to them that stand up for what's right is rare--why?

People are either bystanders, and completely do not respond to cyberbullying, or do respond, but with a lack of assertion.  The rare times that people do take a stand are admired and respected, so why not do it more often?  For me personally, even when you are protected by a screen, standing up for yourself or for others is intimidating.  You yourself could become a target.  This culture of watching without advocating needs to change.  Why are we so concerned with being targeted that we do not defend others, or even ourselves, who are being cyber bullied?  What has created such an intense feeling of hesitation and reluctance within us?  The perpetuation of bullying, and giving into the satisfaction of the bullies only makes it worse.  The forms of media that are insulting and offensive are ridiculously common.  One of the biggest forms is memes.  These memes are often racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.  It's so much easier to go along with it without standing up for those being vicitmized.  We tend to shrug it off, and passively respond.  This is what prolongs bullying.  Instead of sending a half-hearted "lol" or "haha" to the aggressor, we should be saying something along the lines that, "that's not cool".  We don't have to succumb to intimidation.  When we see something even mildly offensive, we should be defending each other, as humans, instead of letting it go. 

                            

Media Is a Mirror--or Is It... A Comment on the "Midriff"

It's hard to determine which comes first, the chicken or the egg?  The media portrayal or what actually happens?  The answer is much more complex than simply a binary response.  In my opinion, what happense is that the media instills within girls from a young age the desire to grow up, and then proceeds to feed off of that by exaggerating and dramatizing the image of "grown-up" females. 

Independence is something that most kids look forward to.  Why?  Because the media sugarcoats the idea of being older, and surpassing adolescence.  Shows and movies such as Gossip Girl, 90210, The O.C., Pretty Little Liars, Mean Girls, and others that target teenage girls glorify growing up.  This establishes the desire to look and act older within young girls.  So, media then exploits this desire that they themselves have created, and construct more advertsing, products, movies, etc., that feeds off of the pre-established idea of wanting to grow up.  This media now shows the specifics that girls buy into--in other words, the "Midriff" image.  This girl already has independence, even if she's a minor.  In the eyes of the audience, who is primarily teenage girls, she is physically perfect.  Every material item that she has, all the teenage girls aspire to have.  This component additionally perpetuates the capitalistic nature of media messaging, as teenage girls will then go buy the products that the Midriffs are shown to have. 

The most prominent characteristic of Midriffs is the sexualization of the characters.  This effect on teenage girls is obvious: upon seeing this, they will want to be perceived similarly by peers, and thus will emulate the qualities of the Midriff.  This is instilling the message in young girls that sexualization is ok.  I'm not saying this is bad, but I do think that the motives are.  A lot of  young girls aren't dressing like Midriffs because they themselves want to, they are doing it to look "cool" or to keep up with the trends.  They're doing it to attain popularity and receive attention.  In my opinion, this is where the Midriff's impact becomes clearly degenerate.  Making girls change who they are, or at least how they exhibit themselves, in order to make a profit is something I strongly disagree with.  This is manipulation at its finest, and its taking advantage of the naivety of young girls who aren't independent in their own thinking yet.  However, it's difficult to change this on such a large-scale.  Young girls, along with the majority of the rest of the population, will be impacted in some kind of way by media manipulation.

                             

Media's Short Attention Span

One of the most disturbing things about media is the portrayal of significant events as fleeting moments to get amped up about for a split second, and then forget about.  Media outlets appeal to people's short attention spans by giving accounts of certain events, and then not ever mentioning them again.

A perfect example of this is the Chibok schoolgirls kidnapping.  276 Nigerian girls were kidnapped from the Government Secondary School five years ago.  Many people will remember that this was a big deal for about a week.  It was probably replaced by something equally exciting that also got people "worried" for two seconds.  Five years later, and 112 girls are still missing, probably getting systemically brutalized daily.  Despite its ongoing seriousness, a complete coverage of this has not really been cycled back into the constantly-changing compilation of "sensational" news stories.  Our temporary concern is a problem.  We are so wrapped up and absorbed in what the media throws at us that we do not treat each issue with genuine concern and prolonged care.  Sure, you could claim that you are actually worried about the Chibok girls, or whatever news story excites you the most.  But how many times did you follow up?  Now, I'm not saying that I do follow up with significant news stories.  I, too, get caught up with the fast-paced cycle of news stories and the fleeting nature of how they are portrayed.

What it really comes down to is that media treats awful events such as the Chibok kidnapping as something that's new and exciting.  The novelty of these tragic events gets boring, so they cover another story that people will find compelling as well.  Media needs to continuously follow up with these events, instead of writing a few articles and then leaving them in the past.

                 

Merchants of Cool: The Difficulty of "Cool Hunting"

Cool hunting is done by culture spies, who are mainly adults.  This, along with the fast-paced cylce of what is considered to be cool by teenagers, lends itself to the difficulty of successfully finding what is cool to teenagers and turning it into efficient adveertisements fast enough.  The problem with seeking out what is "cool", specifically as an adult, is the generally oppositional mindset of teenagers.  The teens who define "cool" are most likely doing it for their own reasons, not to be followed and copied by everyone else.  Therefore, when other teenagers start emulating their clothes, music, etc., the initial starter of the newfound "trend" is repulsed by what they themselves started.  I know that I get annoyed by people who copy others just to be perceived as cool.  This presents itself as a problem for advertisers who are infiltrating the teenage world in order to gain a sense of what is "cool"; certain things can be cool to some people, such as the people who copy others, but are no longer cool to the people who were copied.  Furthermore, as soon as the copiers figure out the originators no longer perceive the certain thing to be cool, there will be a widespread agreement that that certain thing is no longer cool.  It is apparent that the determining of what is cool is a complex ordeal that happens too quickly for advertisers, and adults in general, to catch on to.

Portrayal of Sexual Violence in Media

Unfortunately, in the more recent years, stories of sexual violence have been frequent in the media.  Although these cases are reoccurrent, media outlets tend to limit their coverage to the facts.  Consistently, reasons of why and how these instances happen, as well as methods of prevention, have been excluded from the articles and televised accounts.  This contributes to the reoccurrence of sexual violence.  However, the problem is much larger than the disregard for these components.

The diction of reporters has a significant effect on the audience's perception of sexual violence.  When the language is sugarcoated, the severity of the heinous acts are minimized in the viewers' minds.  Even using the term, "sexual assault", instead of "rape", has a much lighter connotation.  This trivializes the impact of what has happened.  Thus, the victim is invalidated, and the audience is left with a less serious impression of the incidence.  In addition, the aggressor is not fully held accountable when the language understates the austerity of rape.  Even neutral language has the potential to lessen the meaning.  For example, Karen Baker, director of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC), stated, "You might see a case about a teacher and a younger child, and its presented like they were having a sexual relationship.  We need to make it clearer: Who is the responsible person?"  When neutral language is utilized, it can misconstrue what actually happened.  In the case of an adult teacher and a young child, clearly the adult is culpable, however, stating the story as if it were mutual, once again, lessens the severity. 

Overall, this sends a message to not just males, but also females.  Its sending a message that its okay to "sexually assault" a woman, or at least its not that big of a deal.  It sends the same message to women, as well as that being raped is not a serious issue.  Media's passive diction devalidates the grave impact of rape and other cases of sexual violence.  Media outlets need to be more than just factual, they need to enforce morals as well.  Media is responsible for the devaluing of sexual violence, and this perpetuates the vicious cycle of aggressive behavior.  We need to send a more blatant message to not just our youth, but also the general population: any type of sexual violence is completely unacceptable and has a profound impact on victims.


PRI Article

Gender Roles in Media

From a young age, children are constantly being exposed to society's standards of what roles each gender (male or female) should fuflill.  The main culprit of this subjection is media.  This completely suppresses children's individuality and freedom of expression.  During kids' younger years, they see media, mainly television, that portrays stereotypes about activities, traits, toys, and skills affiliated with each gender.  When they engage in play, they also are exposed to gender-specific activities, such as girls playing "mom", and doing things such as cooking, while the boys might play the "superhero".  From experience, I remember always wanting to dress up as a princesss when I was little, whereas my brothers would derss up as superheroes, such as Batman or Superman.  Oftentimes, they would "rescue" me from an imaginary dragon or whatnot.  I think that many other people can relate to this circumstance.  When I was younger, I didn't question that I was supposed to be the princess and my brothers were supposed to be the heroes.  Why?  Because media had reinforced and created this message in my mind that girls had to be the princess, or the fairy, or the damsel in distress, and it was up to the boys to save me.  These messages are present in popular television shows and movies aimed at children, such as the entire Disney Princess enterprise.  I watched those movies most, and it obviously significantly effected me.  Not only was I fine with being rescued by my brothers, I expected it.  

As children get older, the impacts of gender roles in media get more complex.  Children start to attribute certain qualities to each of the genders based on media (i.e. women are more affectionate, loving, and expressive, while men are more aggressive and determined).  As youth get into the early teen years, they are prone to be intolerant of fluidity between gender norms.  Seeing people who crossdress, or even peers who platonically hang out with the opposite gender, is unfamiliar, and therefore frowned upon.  Children are only able to grow out of this intolerance with time, as well as the development of independent thought.  This level of independence can be effectively achieved by detaching oneself from the overwhelming influence of media, and sometimes, one's parents.  Although independent thought can be achieved at some point, the effect of media is too extensive and too harmful to be revoked.  The messages that media sends embed themselves in the subconscious of children, manipulating their thought and hindering their individuality.


                                   

CNN Gender Stereotypes

Coachella and its Anti-LGBTQ+ Founder

Every year, hundred upon thousands of people flock to Coachella.  Some are aware of the political views of its founder, and some are not.  Bottom line, the festival-goers' money goes towards funding descriminatory and degrading organizaitons.   
                                                                   

Billionaire Philip Anschutz, owner and founder of the Anschutz Entertainment Group, has reportedly donated extremley large amounts of money to organizations that support anti-LGBTQ+ campaigns.  For example, the Freedom for All Americans Campaign stated that he gave substantial sums of money to the Alliance Defending Freedom, the National Christian Foundation, and the Family Research Council.  According to the Post, the National Christian Foundation “funds a lot of the groups aggressively working to chip away at the equal rights of LGBT Americans.” The Family Research Council, which states on its website that it “believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large,” has been labeled an “extremist group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The fact that one of the largest music festivals is founded by an arguably homophobic seventy-nine year-old says a lot about our values and priorities.  We would much rather go fan over Beyonce than boycott one of the most popular festivals in America in order to take a stand against homophobia.  The allure of attending Coachella is more important to us than taking action for what is right.  We are so enticed by the advertisements for Coachella that portray fun and once-in-a-lifetime experiences that we no longer prioritize our moral obligations.  Ultimately, we are so blinded by the superficial depicitons of Coachella that we are blind to the underlying circumstances, leading us to lose sight of our principles.

Article

Advertisement Appeals and Techniques- Greenpeace Canada

Advertisements are something we are consumed by.  A significant reason for this is our subconscious needs to do something that is stimulated by such advertisements.  For example, in an attempt to make people around the globe more mindful of the impact of single-use plastics on oceanic creatures, Greenpeace Canada and another agency, Rethink, produced a series of powerful advertisements.

                                  

These advertisements are profoundly impactful, in a number of different ways.  Greenpeace has tapped into the audience's need for affiliation.  They use this in not just one way; the audience feels a need to not be affiliated with these tragic images and the causes of them, as well as that the audience feels a need to be affiliated with saving these animals.  The audience does not want to acknowledge the fact that they are responsible for the deaths and suffering of marine animals such as the ones portrayed in the advertisements.

In order to maximize the effects of these advertisements, Greenpeace and Rethink utilised Gestault and subliminal persuasion techniques.  The images shown have sea creatures, whose sizes are clearly unproportional, floating in glasses of ice water and being choked by single-use plastic straws.  These images are, to say the least, startling and shocking.  The way the animals are positioned, in glasses of drinking water, and that the animals have straws being forced down their throats, is an unusual sight that provokes intense feelings, such as shock, sadness, anger, and even denial, as people are wanting to deny that they have a part in the suffering of marine wildlife.  The shock that these disturbing images induce is enough to make the target audience reflect, even for a short amount of time, and realize that what is happening in these images are very real things.  In addition, the lack of words (or that they are very small and positioned away from the focus point) decreases distraction and forces people to think in a more deeper and reflective way.

Overall, the way that Greenpeace and Rethink, as well as advertisers in general, target the needs of the audience through their advertisements is thoroughly effective.  The subsequent techniques that they use additionally adds to the productiveness of the advertisements.

Same Story, Different Wording: R.I.P. Charlie

In two very different articles, the same news is shared--that the oldest sea otter at any zoo or aquarium as died at the old age of twenty-two.  Right from the start, the different titles have separate connotations.  Fox's heading is, "Oldest southern sea otter in captivity, Charlie, dies in California aquarium at 22," whereas CNN's heading reads, "Charlie, the oldest sea otter at any zoo or aquarium, has died."  Although both give accurate information, Fox's use of the word "captivity" has a much more negative tone compared to saying "zoo or aquarium."  In addition, Fox's heading includes "in California" which gives it an additional accusatory tone.  California is obviously known to be a more liberal state, while Fox is a conservative news outlet, so saying "in California" makes it seem as if it is California's fault that Charlie passed away.

Fox's article starts off with simply textbook facts; "The oldest sea otter in a zoo or aquarium died on Monday in California, according to the aquarium where he was kept."  CNN's begins, "After the El Niño storms of 1997, animal experts decided that an orphaned sea otter pup they had found could not survive on his own in the wild."  To me, CNN's is a much more personal approach that induces much more empathetic emotion than just restating that Charlie died on Monday.  CNN also mentions that at the aquarium, "Charlie thrived", while Fox makes no mention of what a fulfilling life Charlie lived.  This, in itself, demonstrates the differing focuses of the two news outlets.  CNN is more positive and emotional, while Fox is more focused on just the facts.  Unlike the Fox version, CNN also makes a reference to Charlie's appearance in the Guinness Book of World Records.  CNN also notes that Charlie was incredibly intelligent, while Fox continues to maintain focus on the fact that he died.  

Overall, CNN's version of the story was much more optimistic and positive.  Fox stated the minimal facts with not much else.  This blatantly shows the difference in perception and how that influences one's writing.

Fox version

Msn/CNN version

The Persuaders

The Persuaders are those who control advertising.  Their main objective is to gain customers, and they will do mostly anything to accomplish this goal.  This exemplifies the meaning system of utilitarianism.  They are seeking their own happiness, which is measured in monetary value, and they are seeking the customers' happiness and content as well.  The means in which they take to do this are most often manipulative.  For example, in order to gain customers, the persuaders attempt to create the most enticing and subliminally appealing advertisements.  One  method of achieving this is through manipulating their brands and the meaning of their brands to be perceived as a hero, or an icon, which subconsciously triggers the customers' desire to have the said product.  This is manipulative because they are twisting the customers' perception of the true meaning of their brand.

The above picture exemplifies just how much advertisers manipulate us, the consumers.  Through twisted images and vague, twisting words, we become a victim of advertisements.  The fact is that we cannot detach ourselves enough from the enticing components of advertisements to not give in to the appeal of advertisements.

This concept can be referred to as being "advertising friendly".  We are so immersed in the advertisements that the are constantly bombarded by, and we do nothing to combat them and engage in independent thinking.  However, something that we have developed, primarily subconsciously, is some type of guard that decreases our interest and care for the products being advertised.  This has created a cycle that advertisers engage in, which entails trying to produce the most appealing advertisements that will actually engage with the audience enough to transform them into customers.  Simple advertisements are no longer sufficient.  Instead, advertisers now must create an emotional appeal.  They must delve into the audience's subconscious, and make an emotional connection between their products and the consumers' personal experiences and/or preferences.  A paper plate now is associated with some kind of deep positive emotion such as love, instead of just meaning an easier clean-up for backyard parties.  In order to gain customers, advertisers cannot help but engage in manipulative and unnecessarily deep advertising methods.