National Conversation

I just read an article by Sut Jhally. The article was published online and it was called The National Conversation in the Wake of Littleton is Missing the Mark. Its fantastic. I understood so much out of it. Take a look at the article:
National Conversation

What I learned from this is that the killings in the high school in Littleton were not just caused by those two boys, but also the environment they are around. Indirectly, movies, tv shows, and culture was the cause of the killings. Its our culture that tells us that "men have to be aggressive, physical, and violent". Hegemonic masculinity, which is part of what our society believes, is that men have to be tough, have power, and take authority. Now, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the two seniors that conducted the massacre, may have been acting out of what our media brings us. They weren't physically big, which might be a reason to why they didn't fit in, but they had weapons. Weapons are deadly, weapons are dangerous, and weapons give authority and power. When you see Sylvester Stallone shooting around in Rambo and Bruce Willis well built in Die Hard, every boy wants to be like them. And then with the culture saying that men have to be strong and powerful, guys take that as pressure and actually act like that in order to fit in. Maybe that is what the two boys were doing. Trying to fit in. 

Changing the View of the Islamic Faith

Further questions to contemplate for additional posting opportunities: 
-Should amateurs like Ardekani be encouraged to dispense advice about religion and morality to troubled adolescents? In my opinion, people like Ardekani should be encouraged to spread the truth of Islam and how it has nothing to do with terrorists. If people have a an absurd view on the religion of Islam, it is the job of Muslims to change that view. I think its absolutely acceptable to see Ardekani be encouraged to dispense the advice about religion.
-Some people assert that all stereotypes are based on some measure of truth. Do you agree or disagree? Why or why not? I completely agree. When someone says something against someone's race or gender, most of the time they say it as a stereotypical generalization. In other words, they are not just attacking an individual, but also who the individual is. In our world, people stereotype against others because they think that the only peoples that can be accepted is their type of people.
-What language do you hear in school halls or at school events that reinforce stereotypes? What can you do about this? Many times I hear words like "B**ch" or "N**ger" around my campus. Sometimes I hear words like "hoe" or "whore" towards women. I can see that people are obviously treating others who are different to them as if they are not equal to them. In other words, people degrade others. People treat women differently, and obviously we see females fight back. But what I am trying to say is that when people say stereotypical words towards people, it shows how they are degrading people. I don't know what can be done about this to be honest. The fact that we are in an International School helps us a lot, because outside of our school its probably much worse. The best thing we can really do is encourage people to control themselves from using those harmful words.
-Why do stereotypes exist? What purpose do they serve? Stereotypes exist because it helps people know who others are. This allows them to feel comfortable of themselves because they think that they are above the other stereotypes. 

-What organizations are you aware of that promote stereotypes? Why do you think they thrive?  Several organizations like the UEFA, which is pretty much European Football, has had stereotypes towards African's. It's not against African's, and its does allow black players to play in their competitions, but racism has always been a part of the crowds when they see a player like Samuel Eto'o or Didier Drogba join the pitch (they are two famous African footballers). UEFA simply hasn't done enough to counter these racist chants.
-How has the Internet helped or hurt groups that are often targeted? Think about it. What does the internet help people do?... It helps people connect. Something you post on to the web, millions of viewers from across the world can read it. If you say something, people can the wrong message and obviously problems would occur. 

So there was something I could relate to. I just finished an International Relations project and I was working on the book by Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of the Civilizations. Huntington's claim was that conflicts in the future would not be because of economic or ideological reasons, but because of cultural and religious differences. Clearly, he was trying to show the stereotypical issues. He had one quote in his book that Kevin and I went across:

"We know who we are only when we know who we are not, and often only when we know we are against."

The meaning of this quote is that when one see's another race, gender, or sex, they only know who they are because they feel "bigger" than them. The sense of identity is found when one is separated from another. When one’s race is different from another, they know who they are. When one sees a difference in another, they know who they are. In fact, we know who we are when we know who are enemies are. The quote by Samuel Huntington shows the stereotypical influence from each culture, as stereotypes are used to differentiate one another. If a culture separates from another culture, one would know that the only reason they separated is because they can only progress around their own kind, which is a very prejudice and racist act.

 

Find a media product that addresses race, class, gender, or sexual orientation and answer these questions. 

So I was on YouTube looking for random advertisements and I was then watching a Mercedes Advertisement. 

Take a look at the advertisement:

 Mercedes E63 Advertisement

Who is communicating? Well the main person in the advertisement is a female character who dresses up as a rich person. She has heels and she has extravagant clothes. 

What about Who? Basically they were trying to show that wealthy people can buy this type of car, but they were really trying to show it to the middle class. 

Why is it that Way? Well, its like this because they company are trying to target the middle class society. The reason is because the middle class always tends to try to look rich, to show off what they can have. 

But Who Is Responsible?

So I read this paragraph in a New York Times Article and I once again wanted to talk about the issue.

Like suits against tobacco companies, such cases -- and the larger issue of the relationship between legal consumables and public health -- turn on the question of responsibility. Does it rest with those of us who eat, drink and inhale the products that clog our arteries and corrode our livers and lungs, or with the companies who sell and advertise them?

I am only going to reiterate that the people are the ones responsible for their health. Its their decision. Look, an example would be cigarettes. First of all, the company is just doing their business. They are not intentionally trying to kill people. In fact, they know its unhealthy and deadly, and they even put it on the covers of their cigarette boxes. Yet still, people are buying cigarettes. Clearly, its the responsibility of the people, not the company. When a teenager goes to smoke a cigarette, they know its unhealthy for them. Schools, parents, adults, and even the company tells them that "SMOKING KILLS". But yet again, the teenagers choose to be "rebels" and smoke! Yes, teenagers always act against what they are supposed to be doing, and its natural. But teenagers should at least be mature enough to know what they are doing. I'm sure teens know what they are doing, but at least they should face the consequences. They should blame themselves, not the corporations. Thats just wrong. 

TiVo is Watching You!

According to the article, much of the TV viewers in America watch recorded shows. And when it gets to the advertisements, 70% of the viewers skip them. Clearly, most people don't care about the advertisements and think of them as a waste of time. The advertising and television industries have learned that much of the advertisements broadcasted are being skipped when people record their shows. This obviously puts the advertising companies money into waste. But when reading the article, I realized that the advertising and television industries are interested in which advertisements viewers find interesting or boring. I found it kind of bizzarre at first, but then I realized why they would want to know. If advertising companies know which type of ads the viewers like, they would obviously want TV industries to broadcast ads similar to the ones that viewers like. That would push viewers to watch the ad's and not skip them. If advertising companies know which ads viewers tend to skip, they will obviously not make ads like those because that would be a serious waste of money. All the information that we know about viewers who record their shows comes from TiVo, a company that produces TV recorders.


 TiVo would obviously know their statistics as they are the sellers. It is their product that is being used to record, and thats why it would be easy for them to note down how many advertisements are being skipped. In fact, they are also connected to the satellite, which makes it easier for them to count how many people skip the advertisements when watching recorded television. In fact, this would be profitable for TiVo. The more recorder they sell, the more data they receive. With more data, the advertising industries can organize their ad timings, which would increase sales. The ad’s itself show products like tobacco and everyday foods and clothing, which would probably be ad’s that people may want to see as they have to do with their daily lives. In addition, one thing to note down is how the technology of video recording has impacted advertisers and viewers. Many times advertisements get boring, but with the digitial video recorders, viewers can skip the advertisements and just get along with show. This would be bad for advertisers as they wouldn’t earn any money, causing them to find different ways of advertising their products considering that viewers just skip them. 

Exposure to Advertisement

On a normal day basis, I wake up every morning at around 6-30. Before I go to school, I always encounter some sort of advertising. One is the Kelloggs Cereal and the Herald Tribune newspaper. In fact, I generally read the Time magazine and every time I read Time, I always encounter the Rolex advertisements. Another advertisement I was exposed to today was during school, when I was watching a Nike Advertisement that pretty much wants to inspire the viewers to buy their products. In fact, I always encounter ads on Facebook. Every time I log on to Facebook, there is always an advertisement that is asking me to "LIKE" it. Sometimes there is McDonald's, sometimes its Blackberry. Today there was an advertisement on the Itouch, which I obviously "LIKED" as I own one and like it. Also, whenever I go on to the Times of India website to update myself on Indian News and World News, I always encounter advertisements. Today the advertisement I saw was based on a sale for Dell laptops. But then of course, advertisements on the TV's come everyday, especially those Yoplait ones that keep  on irritating me when I watch TV. Actually the more irritating thing is when I am in India, I cannot peacefully watch an episode for a TV show without an ad.

As far as what I can see, most of the advertisement that I had encountered were based on Internet, web sites, Newspapers ads, or magazine ads. In other words, the advertisement medium is highly coming from the Internet, newspapers, magazines, and web sites like Facebook. However, I am pretty sure much of the advertising medium in today's world comes from TV, but I rarely watch TV so I can't really put it as my normal day story. Now when viewing advertisements, the products can be pretty much anything. But the products that I encountered today from the ads were primarily on watches, laptops, yogurts and dairy, music players, and various other products. But I came to realize that most of the advertisements I encounter are subtle. Like the advertisements on the internet, along with its pop ups. I don't really see them properly, but the image sticks into my head. I never really saw the Laptop advertisements or the advertisements on Facebook, but somehow I remember seeing them today. But then the other ads like the Yoplait ad and the Rolex ad are always explicit. The thing about Yoplait is that my mom always buys them for me, and to be honest, I love them! Especially the cheesecake flavor. And the Rolex watches. Well to be honest Time always puts a celebrity with the watches. Sometimes its George Clooney, Roger Federer, Leonardo Di Caprio, OR AISHWARIYA RAI! And whenever its Rai, I'm always taking a few seconds to look at the advertisements :).
Now for the advertisements that I saw, the target  is obviously going to be teenagers or adults, definitely not children. The advertisement of the Yoplait is definitely for adults because it was talking about how it has less sugar in its product now so it would help people with their diets. The Rolex watch obviously targets everyone, because it is trying to lure people to buy the product by using celebrities! I guess we can say the targets for the advertisements are those who are part of the media, because it is the media who always gets manipulated into buying products.
Now in my opinion, I would buy that Rolex watch. I don't really wear watches but I want to start. But I wouldn't buy it because of the watch, I would buy it because I want to be like those stars. Come on, who doesnt want to win more than 15 Grand Slam Tennis Titles in their life? I think everyone would love to be like Roger Federer. Yes, these advertisements do tempt me into buying their products, and it would influence me because I simply am inspired by the celebrities they use to sell their products.