Neg Ads

After watching the latest Youtube Rep Debate I was surprised by the amount of cheap shots that were taken. However the most interesting part on CNN was the post debate special on Negative Ads. Here's one of the neg. ads. in question:

The Ad. emphasized how the competing candidate used a Hotel phone to call a 900 sex line at the tax payers expanse. When CNN dug deer, they found out that the candidate's aid called NON-sex line number by mistake (he was off by a number when he dialed and reached retail warehouse). Total cost for the tax payers- $1.10.

Do you think that ad would sell if it told the truth? I do not think so.

That being said one of the head guys of a marketing ad firm admitted that People hate Negative Ads. but in the end, they do work.

Go figure.

One more thought on the digital divide

In class we discussed whether or not the internet access has the potential to close the gap (or at least narrow the gap) between the rich and poor. No doubt universal access to the internet has the potential to improve people's lives--if they are trained to get the best possible use out of it.

The question was asked how we can bring more people into the digital community. If we means "society," the best answer is obviously improving access to technology within our public schools and libraries. But what does that mean for us as individuals? As people who possess many of the skills that children will need to succeed in a technology-oriented world, we can as individuals have a huge impact on whether or schools and libraries have the resources they need.

We can:

1. Vote to support our local school budgets--even if we don't have children in the schools, and even if it means our taxes will increase. Generally, more people turn out to vote DOWN school budgets than they do to approve them. Also, very few people turn out for school budget votes--so skipping a vote can mean schools will be forced to cut down on "frills."

2. Volunteer our time to tutor children in need.

3. Ask the companies we work for to donate equipment/ expertise to public schools in our communities, or to community outreach programs.

4. Donate our time to help install computer equipment to help schools keep costs down.

5. We can volunteer to teach classes at local libraries to adults interested in learning about the internet.

6. Vote for candidates who are willing to invest in technology education and infrastructure.

7. Write letters to local politicians expressing our support for computer literacy initiatives and improved technology in public libraries.

Just a thought....and Happy Thanksgiving! 8)

Digi Divide

I think that some of this digital divide stuff is premature and I understand that it exists but I think that we need to give it a bit more time. If you look at cell phones they have been around for probably at least twenty years. Everyone remembers the Zach Morris (Saved By the Bell) phone in the early nineties. I mean they existed and the technology was there, but only the really rich had cell phones, because the phones themselves were really expensive and the plans were really expensive. Cell phones became popular when the plans became more reasonable and the phones became much cheaper. Now most people can afford a phone and the cell phone companies are making it much easier for everyone to own a phone, they have plans with no contracts and they also have prepaid phones, which is basically where you buy minutes to use.

With computers it might take a bit longer for them to become cheap enough for everyone to buy one but that day will come. I was without a computer for a couple of months and I just made use of my local library. I think the public library is a very important thing because it gives people the opportunity to be connected even if they can't afford it. In my ICM 501 class we were talking about this and a classmate made a point that maybe since everyone can afford a cell phone maybe using a cell phone as your primary source for staying connected might be a possibility. I'm not sure how I feel about that but I think it is definetely a possibility you can do so much on your phone right now and the things that you can do on your phone or only going to keep growing. Do you think that cell phones will be the key in bridging the digital divide?

Barbara's Post on the importance of access to the internet

Barbara is experiencing some technical difficulties so she emailed me her comments. Here they are:

First, I do not dispute the finding of Hargittai or Hoctoc on internet users. Since the inception of the internet there has and will continue to be statistics on its users.

I was not surprised about the divide between gender and race. Of course, those who can afford and know how to navigate around the internet are more informed.

We are living in a computer age there is an abundance of knowledge to find on the internet. Of course, that is understatement. Globally the internet has given a right of entry for people to voice their opinion.

However, as Hoctor point out, “Leaders in the developing world look to the internet with a mixture of enthusiasm and trepidation, at once seeing telecommunications technology as a path to free market advancement as well as the potential undoing of authoritarian control structures.” (697).

I think it is imperative for all households to have internet access. Nevertheless, it is gratifying to know that one can go to the library or school for alternative access.

Here are two websites that give more up to date statistics:

Http://answer.google.com/answers/theadview- African American/Hispanic use of Internet.

Http://www.webmarketingwatch.com/web_marketing_video/January_2007/African American_internet_statistics (Sage Lewis).

--BarbaraJ

Just like The View, ignorance will only get worse

Abramovitz and De Leo (or is it Matthew Robinson? The text attributes this article to different people depending on where you look. Anyway....) provide a multitude of examples to illustrate how Americans know more about entertainment than politics, more about advertising than history, more about Bill Cosby than Bill Clinton.

Is anyone surprised by this?

Polling illustrates just how much we don't know, and how much this lack of knowledge can have a detrimental effect on public debate. But I would have preferred that the authors delved a little deeper into finding out how and why we ended up this way. It's no secret that most of us prefer watching television over reading The Bill of Rights, but what caused us to get to the point where we know so little about important current events? I discussed this issue with my dad, age 62, to get his perspective. He told me that when he was a kid, his family would sit down together and watch the news every night after dinner. Why the news? And why every night? Because that's all that was on during that half hour with the limited channel selection they had. That got me thinking: do the increasing media choices we have only make us more ignorant? And will it get even worse as more niches, going far beyond Food Network, develop? When there was less choice in the past, perhaps Americans were less entertained and more informed because they couldn't find that channel or website that served their unique tastes. Abramovitz and De Leo/Robinson's humorous use of comparisons shows just show stark and troubling this ignorance is. 99 percent of college seniors polled were familiar with Beavis and Butthead but only 22 percent knew that the phrase "government of the people, by the people, and for the people" came from the Gettysburg address (362). Yikes.

Wade Roush might think that we will continue to have better access to information than ever before, but even he or she (this person is referred to by both pronouns in the text. I guess they were still trying to nail down gender by the time of publication.) might not think that better Internet services will have a causal relationship with a more informed public. His/her article is very far from an emphatic "Yes" to the question of Are People Better Informed in the Information Society. Just because information is delivered faster and more securely does not mean that people will improve the kinds of information they decide to consume.

Does anyone else think these editors had a few too many wine coolers before throwing together Issue 18?

Media and Fear and Here

I barely watch TV because everytime I sit down to watch the news I get very frustrated. On every channel, it would be safe to say that someone who isn't up on world affairs and who is afraid of everything would be pretty scared by the state of the world.

The only thing I saw reported much were child sex with teacher cases, why this media channel is worse than the one you are currently watching, and why the Middle East is going to destroy the world in a flame of jihad... or Iranian nukes.

What about good news? I know this question has come up many a time before, where someone says "Well only bad news sells". Maybe, but wouldn't it be nice to hear a report of "This senator commented today on how well the US is doing in this area". That would make me feel good.

It just seems like the United States never does anything right. It seems like our media, consciously and semi-unconsciously, always point out the bad things about America. Just this morning I saw on the news about that woman whose son died and she runs around the country protesting at soldier's funerals. The whole story was about how she brings 1 of her 10 children to stamp on the American flag at these protests that get close to violent some of the time.

Why are they talking about this woman? If they didn't speak about her, I wouldn't be thinking about her right now. She is just some loon who believes this country is a horrible place. I don't think it's a horrible place. I think there are some things that could be BETTER, but that doesn't mean this is a horrible country.

I wonder if the media portrayal of its country is the same in other countries, like England, France, heck, anywhere. Why does our media feed on our fears and then downplay the country whenever we can?

Now, some of the readers here may be thinking, "Go watch Fox news". I think that network is just as biased as any other network on T.V. The problem is these networks feel they know what is best for the American people instead of just telling us the objective facts. You ever notice how EVERY show has the host's opinion segment? Why do I care about your opinion? It is no better than my opinion. The segment should be emails with others opinions, and just get rid of the host's opinion. News is supposed to be objective.



I guess that's how it works these days.

Confused

Although I am not the lead blogger for this week, I have to mention one thing about this week's readings. In De Leo's article (NO) great emphasis is put on the misinformed society that is the U.S.A. I do agree with him to a certain point. There does exist a huge number of citizens who are clueless when it comes to politics, medicine, and economy. However, with that being said, I feel that a good chunk of the population is either confused and/or manipulated.
Here's an example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

Media and Censorship

I think images of war and death (not only from war but from anything) should be censored to an extent. I remember when Hurricane Katrina happened and it seemed like every day on the cover of The New York Times that they showed dead bodies, with haunting captions underneath the pictures. Perlmutter and Major say, "When photographers capture gruesome images...journalists and the public wonder what should be shown, how it should be shown, and why," (p.182). Reading the article by Campbell actually made me sick to my stomach and I couldn't read it all. He includes very vivid images when he describes the death of James Byrd and the death of a man and his son in Gaza. Campbell says, "Images do bring a particular kind of power to the portrayal of death and violence," (p.17). Also, I think news organizations use images of death and violence for shock value, to kind of get their point across. For example when they show gruesome images of war, they are just reinforcing that war is terrible and that people do die grizzly deaths. Another example is when they do stories about Sierra Leone, they show you what really happens over there, from the stories that are told to the images you see.

"...The controversy over what type of content should be available to different consumers has plagued the relationship of between media industries and the FCC," (p.260). I think certain programs and movies on television channels for children shouldn't be on them, for example on the channel ABC Family, they play movies that are unsuitable for certain age groups, movies like "Cruel Intentions." When I see these movies being played on there on early Saturday afternoons, when anyone could be watching upsets me greatly. Gone are the days where content was appropriate. However, I think it is up to the parents to monitor or "censor" what their children are watching, not the FCC or the government. However, how can the FCC regulate what children can watch on television but not in theaters? Every time I go to a Rated R movie, there are families there, even for scary ones, that you know contain gory images, graphic violence, etc.

In the article I found it talks about how the FCC is trying to regulate violence on television shows that are played during the times children could be watching, becuase they say that watchihng violent television does have an effect on children. According to Paul Farhi and Frank Ahrens of the Washington Post, "The Federal Communications Commission has concluded that regulating TV violence is in the public interest, particularly during times when children are likely to be viewers -- typically between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., FCC sources say." Farhi and Ahrens also state, "For decades, the FCC has penalized over-the-air broadcasters for airing sexually suggestive, or "indecent," speech and images, but it has never had the authority to fine TV stations and networks for violent programming." I think the FCC wanting to regulate how much violence is portrayed on television programs is absurd. Also, what does the FCC classify as "violence" on these television shows? Is it a man hitting his wife or someone getting shot; both are violent? If parents don't want their children to watch these programs then don't have them watch it or they should use the device called the V-chip, that allows parents to block shows and channels that they deem unsuitable for their children. "First Amendment experts and television industry executives, however, say that any attempt to regulate TV violence faces high constitutional hurdles -- particularly regarding cable, because consumers choose to buy its programming," according to Farhi and Ahrens.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/23/AR2007042302048.html

But when you look at how in Communist countries their government regulated everything, from what they watched on television to what they listened to on the radio, etc. This government also didn't say what they did wrong, it was how well they did. I can't even imagine living in those countries at that time, and when Maria talked about how her mom was at the door while her dad listened to the radio, to make sure they wouldn’t get in trouble is crazy. John Tuza says, "We were metaphorically broadcasting in the dark, and many of our listeners were actually listening in the dark," (p.1). Tuza says,"...BBC World Service, Radio Liberty, VOA and Deutsche Welle, were collectively known as the 'Voices'," (p.6). These broadcasters and stations provided people of these Communist countries with information their government covered up or just didn't tell its people. "What the BBC taught its listeners was to judge critically, to apply critical questioning to problems," says Tuza. I found this article interesting that citizens of the Communist countries were curious about their government and what their government was telling them and that they weren't "ignorant" on what was really happening. According to Tuza, "The foreign broadcasts played their part in freeing ordinary listener from relying on official media. It confirmed that there was a huge discrepancy between what individuals saw as the facts of life and what their government and party told them was reality," (p.8).

Mass media during the communist regime in Romania (a personal view)

The article “Radio and the fall of communism” by John Tusa reflects very well what deprivation of information meant and how people tried to inform themselves in other way than listening or watching the “official” radio and television from the communist countries. I agree with Tusa who concludes: “…there was a huge discrepancy between what individuals saw as the facts of life and what their government and party told them was reality”. (13)

Mass media represented in all communist countries a tool of propaganda, of manipulation and lying of citizens. Starting from this article, I will share a part of what meant media in Romania before 1989. Many aspects revealed by the article characterized the communist period from Romania from 1965 to 1989.

The communist mass media system from Romania was entirely controlled by the government: all types of TV and radio programs and all types of print articles.
The viewers could watch TV programs only three hours per day. Each TV program started and ended with the national hymn. It was followed by news, cartoons (5-10 minutes), a movie and others programs dedicated to the president of Romania Nicolae Ceausescu and to the Communist Party.

The news program idolized Ceausescu and the Romanian Communist Party. The news was sprinkled with sound bites. Crowds of people from different towns of Romania participated at some special events organized by the propaganda apparatus in large public squares in order to celebrate the realizations of different institutions and they were directed to chant: “Long live Ceausescu, long live Romania!”.
The news were focused on the zeal of the workers from factories, industry and agriculture, on the exports made by Romania in others countries, on the visit of Ceausescu in other countries. The main character of almost all programs was Ceausescu. His wife didn’t miss either. In contrast with this type of news, the viewers could see, as bad news, information about “the disasters” from the capitalist countries (for example: the explosion of the Challenger space shuttle, significant stock exchange drops and the craziness thereafter, and worker strikes) in order to inoculate in the mind of Romanians the idea that the communist political system means prosperity and stability.

The most important part of TV and radio programs were dedicated to Ceausescu. The audience could watch and listen interminable songs and poetry about the dictator and his “realm”. One of the most popular TV program was “The Ode of Romania”. It was basically a sort of continuous festival, a compilation of different brainwashing shows organized in different parts of the country in honor of Ceausescu and the Party. Many other ridiculous TV programs followed in line, for example, “Guarding the Motherland”, which informed the audience about the bravery of the army and about their strong preparation for eventual attacks of some elusive enemy.
Sometimes, the viewers could watch, after the news bulletins, Romanian, and Russian movies. In 1970s Western movies with John Wayne were broadcasted (but that was cut in the 1980s), documentaries for popularizing the science, such as: “Travel in the Univers” by the American astrophysicist Carl Sagan. The Romanian viewers enjoyed, on Sunday, in the afternoon, short episodes from American serials, such as “Dallas”, or the Brazilian serial “Paulista Boulevard”. All was in order to show the “decomposition” of the capitalist society.

The children enjoyed cartoons with Romanian, Polish and Russian characters: “Lolek and Bolek”, “Miaunel and Balanel” (something like Mieowy and White Spot) and The Wolf and the Bunny, of maximum 10 minutes each day. Only, on Sunday, the audience could watch Disney cartoons as “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” also for about 10 minutes, which extended the presentation of a single movie to about half a year.

The censorship in Romanian communist media was very strong. At the end of 1980s the vocabulary of different publications and broadcast programs was cleaned by foreign words. Step by step were interdicted the programs for learning foreign languages. Only the programs dedicated to national minorities were broadcasted.

In the same period the subscriptions for foreign publications were interdicted. After the Michael Gorbaciov coming to power in Kremlin and after the breaking of political relations between Romania and Russia, the access, - free until then – of Romanians at Soviet press was stopped. All movies and TV programs, all publications or any product of Western economy became prohibit in order to not to shadow the “grandiose achievements” of Romanian economy.

It was very boring to read the print newspapers. The articles were characterized by the so called “wooden language”, consisting of a narrow selection of words and fixed-style phrases. Everything was presented as strong, grandiose, lofty, triumphant, successful, victorious, etc.
The titles of newspapers were really hilarious: for example: “Free Romania”. Free Romania who? People were spied upon even in their houses. My father, for example, listened “The Voice of America” on the radio and “Free Europe” with some other member of the family keeping watch at the door… During his listening, my grandfather stayed as a guard at door and my mother walked around the house in order to assure herself that there are no Securitate agents spying around the house… The news were discussed afterwards.

Nowadays the press freedom and the freedom of Romanians to inform themselves is not a problem any longer, but the political system still inherits habits from the past has not fully taken its grip from mass media. Now, mass media is controlled by more political voices in comparison with communist period. Especially, the Romanian Public Television is manipulated politically.
Many of the press trusts are owned and coordinated by political leaders, therefore the information of the audience is not always objective. But Romania, as other ex-Communist countries, is passing through a transition period from many points of view even that regarding the relation between mass media, political power and public opinion. At the same time the transition from the communist to the capitalist system needs time. Eighteen years passed from the fall of Communist Party, but it is still not enough in order to have a mass media system similar with the Western media system.

Maria Iova

"No restriction on Freedom of Speech"

“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker,” Frederick Douglass.

I am proud to be an American because of the many freedoms I enjoy in this country. Just being able to write and print my ideas is essential to my growth as a person.

Do I disapprove of hate groups who march to get their point across? No, as U.S. citizens, they have the right but I too have a right to counter protest.

Edison and Jacobs’s example of Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl was the catalyst for government intrusion. Congress wasted no time in putting hefty fines on television and radio stations to comply with its new restrictions.

Restriction must put on those who do not understand what true freedom means. This country has produced great speakers such as, W.E. B. Du Bois, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.

Here are two websites that give insight into this freedom we all share.
Http:www.freedomforum.org and Http:www.ourcivilisation.com

When journalists get lazy

... the First Amendment doesn't amount to much. This article in the Christian Science Monitor demonstrates how media created myth in the Gena 6 story. It is so startling, I had to post it. This is an example of why local reporting is important.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1024/p09s01-coop.html

You HAVE to read this ASAP!

This article was in the Times on Oct. 17.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2677098.ece

This is absolutly ridiculous!!!!!!! I am pretty much disgusted that someone would say this. He claims that black people are less intelligent and he has found evidence in the DNA. Read for yourself.

I'm scared for the First Amendment

Maybe it is the lack of diversity of media opinions that bothers me. Maybe it is the control that each media corporation dictates on what is news and what isn't.

Moyers says on page 221: "So what must we devise to make the media safe for individuals stubborn about protecting freedom and serving the truth? And what do we all -- educators, administrators, legislators, and agitators-- need to do to restore the disappearing diversity of media opinions?"

It is true that the amount of media opinion is much smaller. Here's why: Media opinion attached to big corporation means that local news stations cannot just be local news stations. They have to be subordinate to the larger conglomerate, let's use Fox News as an example.

When something happens around the country, the news stations locally act for the national news. Basically, the local is removed as we are all thrown onto the national scene, constantly.

Multiply this by many media stations, divided it by the amount of substations, and square the amount of total national stations, and that equals a complete lack of diversity.

Random diversity is completely necessary for democracy to occur. Random occurrences are also necessary as well.

If all the media in the country all are subordinate to one type of opinion "from the top", how is that helping democracy?

It is easy for us to sit here in a graduate class and philosophically discuss the first amendment and whether we believe in it, however the strange reality is the amendment meant to protect us is quickly turning into something that it isn't, or something that won't exist soon.

Bottom line, I don't want to see the same story on CBS, FOX, NBC, and ABC. I want to see differences and competition, not just cheap policing of each other like a bunch of elementary school kids. (O'Reilly said this or Couric said that type stories)

This country needs opinion diversity or the First Amendment will die.

men and women's image issues

Are women affected my media resulting in body & image issues more than men?
I agree with parts of either side of the argument. The first section (Martin & Gentry) focused on adolescents being affected and influenced by media standards and images. But Cottle moved on to discuss Men & Women's magazines. The discussion cannot be one in the same. pre-pubescent teens and the effects that media images have on their mental image of what they 'should' be and their self-esteem, cannot be looked at next to the effects that Adult, Cosmopolitan type magazines have on, well, ADULTS. Cottle puts on a great argument with plenty of examples, citing specific ads, articles and products that cause men to be as involved with image issue as women notoriously are, but Cottle argument is based on a mature audience that 1) has the spending power to direct money into much more drastic and consistent procedures and products. and 2) has an fully grown/mature body that they are altering. Martin & Gentry are discussing image issues of teens and tweens that don't have an income to spend (although, let us not neglect those fortunate little ones that have trust funds and mommy & daddy's checkbook to write from). Cottle also uses the gay [very image conscious] population as an example of being prime targets for image altering feeding. Also, when you examine the reasons behind Cottle's population's image altering and insecurities, you must realize that sexual drive is a real force behind these image obsessions. Even though teens do have the capacity to urge and become sexually active, there is not nearly as much drive behind their image issues. I know I focused primarily on this one article but it is because i really feel that there was such a gap in subjects examined on either side of it and wanted to make sure that it was pointed out.

Men are concerned with their image too...

I fully agree that the self-image for women relative to the media applies to men as well.

About 8 out of 10 men that I knew in college all weekly went to get manicures to clean their nails. The same amount subscribed to Maxim and Men's Health, and all of them would go "shopping" and end up buying more than they set out to buy in the first place.

The media is not only effecting how women view themselves, but also how a man views himself as well.

I find that most men won't admit that the clothes they bought are a little.. out there. Instead, it is phrased, like in the reading of the No side in Taking sides, that it is a manly purchase. That somehow they are more "man" now from doing this.

I think this is a critical point to understanding this kind of marketing. Men, on one hand, need to be marketed that they will be more manly. What is ironic is the standard of man has changed. In the article, the phrase "John Wayne days" is used to describe how men used to be more rugged. I ascribe my standard of image to those days. John Wayne is awesome.

Now the image has changed to something more than that. Men, to be more manly, have to be more attractive. Men now are self conscious (and maybe more self aware as well).

So maybe the standard of man has just changed. Now a man needs more things to be a man, before you could just wear an old t-shirt from a decade or so ago.

I am still going to wear my t-shirt, personally.

The changing, and unchanging, presentation of women in media

The article, Women's Depiction by the Mass Media, is a bit dated. Many of the statistics that were valid in 1979 are no longer valid today. There is an obvious benefit to this, however, in that it allows us to draw comparisons with how women were depicted then and how they are depicted today. While the amount of progress that still needs to be made is an argument for another day, some of the changes that have occurred are startling. Tuchman notes that, "voiceovers continue to be dominated by men" (532). Yet, we saw in the article by Ji and McNeal a few weeks ago that only 10 percent of American commercials used males for voiceovers in commercials during their period of study from 1997 to 1999 (87). Although this is not a strictly apples-to-apples comparison, since Tuchman includes station breaks and program descriptions and not solely commercials in her article, the shift shows how much more of an impact women have on influencing consumers through advertising. One area where I do not think this trend has followed, though, is the television news media. While Katie Couric made history by becoming the first female lead anchor of a network evening news, the program is still introduced with a male voice. In fact, if you turn on your TV at 6:30 p.m. each weekday evening, you see that all of the introductions to the big 3 networks' (CBS, ABC, NBC) news programs are introduced by a male, as they seemingly always have been. Perhaps Americans now are more influenced by women when it comes to buying products but still prefer to hear a man on the evening news.

Is it because the American public can find a woman appealing when it comes to advertising, but stop short when it comes to the perceived intelligence and trust they look for in a news broadcast? An uneven image is still exerting itself significantly.

So how, then, does the media view women in the male-dominated world of sports? According to Jones, Murrell, and Jackson, research suggests that despite the achievements of women in sports, print media coverage of the gold medal-winning US Olympic women's sports teams "deemphasizes task-relevant aspects of their performance and focuses instead on performance-irrelevant dimensions... and success is socially constructed as an alternative to their male counterparts" (189-190). Even in "female-appropriate" sports, like gymnastics, they found the focus was less on the athletes' peformance and more on their "beauty and grace" (190). I decided to search around a little bit to find an example, and I found that this construct is not restricted to the print media. Take a look at this:



The overarching theme of this athlete's story is not how talented and athletic she is, but how she was a child with braces, and not so long after became a hero to young girls. To do so, she had to defeat a "diva" with "Russian grace" (who might also be an athlete too- we're not quite sure).

Perhaps the comparison to men in some of these sports was inevitable since men were the first to compete in these sports on a large scale and laid the groundwork for how these games are played. And maybe we focus on the grace of women in sports like gymnastics and figure skating because it is this gracefulness that makes them so popular and sets them apart. After all, men compete in gymastics and figure skating too, but are far less popular than their female counterparts. Yet, we cannot ignore the idea that the admiration of the grace of these women is as much rooted in looks and body type as it is the undertaking of their sport.

Twisted Gender Equality

The article "Turning Boys Into Girls", the no side of the issue, is emphasis on body image in the media harmful to females only, was great. I thought that it brought up a lot of great points and I thought that the light tone that it was written in was great. I actually started laughing a little bit when I was reading this.

I think the fact that Cottle says that if women want gender equality we have to make men as obsessed with their looks as women is a great point. I think that it is almost impossible to reverse the affect that advertising and society have on women and I think now that the media, advertisers and beauty products are focusing on men in some very twisted way it begins to level the playing field. I think that in general if we could reverse these effects and somehow prevent our society from being so obsessed with looks the world would be great but I think only in a utopian world could that ever happen.

I think that it is nature as the yes side was saying that people want the most healthy and attractive looking mate and I feel like advertising has taken it to another level by completely exploiting beauty. I don't think that beauty is the problem I think that it is the money driven world that we live in, people want to make money and beauty and beauty products sell. I mean I think that is the problem here, in the no side, Cottle stated that the advertising went up in Men's Health when people figured out that this was an untapped market. Basically the idea is to exploit people's insecurities to make a buck.

I do think that men being obsessed with their looks is generational though, I think that younger men are much more concerned for the most part with their looks than older men. And I think eventually we will live in a society where everyone is so obsessed with their looks, men and women and children to adults. I mean we already see it happening. I think that maybe we just need a little bit more movement to stop this advertising. I do remember seeing this Dove campaign I think it was called Real Women are something like that, and there were all different types of women in the advertising. I thought that it was a great campaign but I think that it is the only major campaign that I've really seen.

I just have a few questions, do you think that it is possible to reverse the effects of advertising on both men and women? How long before men are just as equal to women with their insanity about their looks? What ways to you think that we can attempt to stop this from affecting children?

Nicole's issue 3 response (since I was absent from class..)

Does racial segregation still exist and dominate the media?
I agree with not the side the it does or it doesn’t so much as I believe in how McWhorter comments on the fact that BOGLE seeks out and dissects each possible example of racial presence on television. It seems that a lot of Bogle’s argument was sturdy, but not necessarily altogether race based. He pulled together a great argument for media influence and stereotypes. He just used race as an optional part of the equation. You could have used any group of society and substituted it in to his argument and it would have been just as strong. Consequently, I’m not exactly convinced by Bogle’s argument. His debating skills, yes, not the subject matters though. Also, I saw in the ‘No’ side of the argument (McWhorter) not the argument being particularly strong, however, his inherent attitude came across as a perfect crutch to his argument that race is not abused nor the underlying theme behind all the diversity on TV. McWhorter discussed how as a child, he was raised in front of certain television programs and that even his parents (particularly his mother) were what really helped to determine how he viewed the messages and characters in the shows. That is what I think was the meat of his discussion. Not how the media portrays race and stereotypes, but how we accept them as individuals consuming the program and its’ characters. I think race has little to do with the way that characters are cast in ALL shows. I know that it does shape SOME shows and some programs will use the race card to add more elements and complications to a shows story line, but I do not think that any one race is abused and used in the media for entertainment or story line purposes…but maybe that’s just because that’s how I was raised to view TV programs [and by extension, much of the way I perceived the world I grew up in].

Nicoleissue 3 response since I was absent from class..

Does racial segregation still exist and dominate the media?
I agree with not the side the it does or it doesn’t so much as I believe in how McWhorter comments on the fact that BOGLE seeks out and dissects each possible example of racial presence on television. It seems that a lot of Bogle’s argument was sturdy, but not necessarily altogether race based. He pulled together a great argument for media influence and stereotypes. He just used race as an optional part of the equation. You could have used any group of society and substituted it in to his argument and it would have been just as strong. Consequently, I’m not exactly convinced by Bogle’s argument. His debating skills, yes, not the subject matters though. Also, I saw in the ‘No’ side of the argument (McWhorter) not the argument being particularly strong, however, his inherent attitude came across as a perfect crutch to his argument that race is not abused nor the underlying theme behind all the diversity on TV. McWhorter discussed how as a child, he was raised in front of certain television programs and that even his parents (particularly his mother) were what really helped to determine how he viewed the messages and characters in the shows. That is what I think was the meat of his discussion. Not how the media portrays race and stereotypes, but how we accept them as individuals consuming the program and its’ characters. I think race has little to do with the way that characters are cast in ALL shows. I know that it does shape SOME shows and some programs will use the race card to add more elements and complications to a shows story line, but I do not think that any one race is abused and used in the media for entertainment or story line purposes…but maybe that’s just because that’s how I was raised to view TV programs [and by extension, much of the way I perceived the world I grew up in].

How interesting...

Isabelle Rigoni's article on Muslim media bugged me. In fact, it really, really bugged me.

Maybe what I am about to say is only semi-related to the article, but let me start with the article first.

Rigoni talks about the Muslim media in Britain and France, talks a lot about the differences in how they are treated, and then casually mentions how the lobbying power of the French Muslim media is much less than the Britsh muslim media. On page 12-13 of the article, Rigoni talks about the differences in the approaches of the Muslim media in their respective countries to government; the British try to change from within, while the French look for inclusion.

Why is the lobbying power of the media brought up? Perhaps it is because the media today is able to be a proximal cause of personal change for individuals by pressuring the government based on their agenda.

Thomas Jefferson once said:
"The basis of our governments being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter. But I should mean that every man should receive those papers and be capable of reading them." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787. ME 6:57

Media is very important to government, but I think that the media of today cannot hide behind Jefferson's notion of the newspaper. I guess what bothers me is the third party agenda. In ancient Rome, Caesar used to print the government news on stone tablets for all to see. Caesar picked the words and on they went to the public tablet.

I'm not advocating for government media, but in today's media, it is very easy for any group to exert its influence. Also, it is very easy for a minority to assert its right and change things using this medium. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but let's add fuel to the fire...

I don't have any desire to read Cosmopolitan. None at all. Let's pretend Cosmopolitan all of the sudden became political with a dash of social change zealotry. They decide that all women should have a Cosmopolitan type dress code for work because that is the "proper way" for a woman to look. They use the magazine to press the issue, other news organizations tuck their tails between their legs (god forbid they stand up for themselves), and the next thing you know, in most media it says that "it is better for a woman to dress like this".

My whole point is now with media anyone can convince anyone that something is true since the point of the view of the argument can be made from any angle with media, thus making the argument always true given the shown circumstance within the media.

Any agenda... anytime.. anywhere. Now that is scary.

A word about racial stereotypes

Is media a reflection of culture or does it take a life of its own and define a culture?

In our readings about African-American stereotypes in the media, the answer seems to be both. Havens points to the international success of The Cosby Show as an example of how the economic progress of African-Americans led to the creation of a show about a black middle class family. Cosby paved the way for a new generation of situation comedies depicting African-American family life. This is an example of how the media reflected changes in our culture.

On the other hand, Havens also points out that Cosby, in turn, had the power to change cultural attitudes. For example, the critics worried that the wildly successful sitcom gave whites the mistaken impression that we no longer had to worry about racism. In addition, according to Havens, The Cosby Show gave hope to black South Africans that they too could achieve economic and social equality.

It seems to me that the way African-Americans are depicted on fictional television has changed over the years. In the beginning, it was a question of whether African-Americans were seen at all. Then there was a period when the majority of depictions of black people were negative and pandered to accepted stereotypes. Today, we have everything from Cliff Huxtable lecturing his son about personal responsibility to gun-toting gangsta rappers.

The images have changed and become more varied, but the central question remains the same: To what extent do media images of minorities impact their ability move up in society? Most interesting is the current debate raging within the African-American community itself: Is gangsta rap an empowering refection of inner city culture--or is it helping to lock this generation of poor African-Americans into a cycle of poverty?

If you are interested, here are two books about this issue:

Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It by Juan Williams


Nuthin' But a "G" Thang: The Culture and Commerce of Gangsta Rap
By Eithne Quinn

'The Sopranos' and stereotypes (post from Jenna)

http://blog.nj.com/sopranosarchive/2007/06/the_sopranos_and_stereotypes_p.html

I think there are still stereotypes in the media. I agree with the writer of this article that television falls back on stereotypes, rather than challenges them. They still have African Americans playing “thugs” with their baggy pants, being loud-mouthed, on well-fare, etc. They still have Asians as martial arts masters and Latinos as not being able to speak English or as cleaning people, etc. Rarely do you see minorities on shows that are based around white characters. For example the show “Friends” is based in New York City that is vastly diverse in different nationalities, yet none of the main characters had any minority friends. I’m a huge fan of “Friends” and they only had 2 black supporting characters on the show, and 1 was only in 1 episode. The media also stereotypes Caucasians. They have Caucasians as being rich, as “trailer trash,” or Italians as being in the mob. They portray British people as having bad teeth and Irish people as drinking alcohol and hot-tempered.

Take for instance “The Sopranos” and mobster movies like “Goodfellas,” “The Godfather,” and “A Bronx Tale.” All of these have two things in common, they are about the mob and they are about Italians. Mobster shows and movies alike, glorify the mob business as being dangerous, you get to sleep with countless women, and it has nice perks, etc. However, what are these shows telling young audiences (15 and up) who watch these types of media. They see being in the mob as cool and they look up to certain characters because maybe it would be fun to be the “boss” and in charge, and to get away with doing illegal things, and living in a mansion, etc. They even portray African Americans on the show negatively as drug dealers and gang bangers and they call then the “n-word.”

Many Italians aren’t in the mob, but someone people watching “The Sopranos” or mob movies may think all Italians are in the mob, because it seems that’s how they show Italians in the media, which is misconstrued. People may see the mob image associated with Italians because of these types of media. However, not all Italian characters are portrayed as being in the mob, but they do cast them as being degenerates. Take for instance Fonzie on “Happy Days” or John Travolta’s character in the movie “Grease.” Both characters were greasers and got into trouble many times.

I don’t think stereotyping will ever be gone from the media or in the real world, because that is just the way the world is. Media executives know they can make bundles of money out of having stereotypical characters and they know people will watch.

Polish stereotypes on television

Comment on "Image, status, mobility, and integration in American society: the Polish experience"

I’m old enough to remember the Barney Miller show—it was one of my favorites. If you are interested in how Det. Stan 'Wojo' Wojciehowicz is portrayed, watch the episodes “The Courtesans” Parts 2 and 3.

http://www.searchforvideo.com/entertainment/tv/barney-miller/

* for you younger folks, that strange device Wojo is using is a typewriter! ;)

The character of “Wojo” was not portrayed as generally stupid, but he was stupid about relationships. And the African-American character, Detective Harris, whom Pula describes as “impeccably dressed” and “articulate”, was also a snob. Yamana, the Japanese-American detective, bet on horses. Deitrick, the German-American, got himself into a couple of scrapes because of his ultra-liberal political views and often alienated himself from “the regular guys” by his constant philosophizing.

My point is that each of the characters had a personal quirk. With Wojo, it was women. He just couldn’t get enough of them. As a young viewer, (this was the seventies and I watched it as a teenager) it never occurred to me to associate that weakness with the fact that he was Polish… to me, he was just a guy with a long name who had a lot girlfriends, some of whom were downright flaky.

But if you are Polish and have had to listen to a lot of insensitive Polish jokes, I can understand why you might take offense at the character. I was a public school teacher for ten years, and I cringe at the stereotypical teacher characters on kids’ shows. Most of them are prissy, clueless, and don’t like kids very much. To me, most of these portrayals aren’t all that funny, but kids find them hilarious.

The mispronunciation of Wojciehowicz's last name was a running gag on the show, but the people who mangled it more than once were portrayed as stupid and insensitive.

Wojo himself was a complex character. He was also honest, hardworking, sincere, and a male chauvinist. In one episode he offers asylum to a Russian immigrant who sought refuge from communism. In another, he deals with the knowledge that he was exposed to Agent Orange during his tour as a soldier in Vietnam.

How we see media characters depends on our past experiences. If your only experience with a certain ethnic group comes from mostly negative portrayals in the media, I think it can impact how you think of that group.

China bans sexually suggestive advertisements on TV

Check this out:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20983975/

12 kinds of ads

I wanted to show it in class today, but since some videos load slowly, it would just take too long.
But please check it out before the next class. This slide show examines number of ads and puts them in variety of categories, depending on what enticing technique do they use.

http://www.slate.com/id/2170872/slideshow/2170932/fs/0//entry/2170933/

Advertising to children- effects

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/6/2563

Its a pretty good article- read if you have time

is advertising ethical and does it influence children?..... read on..

http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep00/advertising.html

Post from Jenna

Advertisements are used to influence, persuade, and inform consumers, but their ultimate goal is to get consumers to buy a product. Advertisers want to advertise where they know they can reach people, but it’s the people they are reaching, that many question if advertising is ethical. Ads contain jingles, memorable music, celebrities, etc. and most ads don’t contain very much information. According to Nina Riccio, “Media messages are created by people whose job it is to come up with interesting images, songs, or graphics that will make you want to buy their product,” (p. 93). People remember ads for a few reasons: 1. because it was funny, 2. it had a memorable jingle, 3. it fulfilled the consumer’s need or want, and/or 4. all of the above. According to Mindy F. Ji and James U. McNeal, “The development of advertising in the United States can be divided into four stages: product information, product image, personalization, and lifestyle…” (p.5).

I think advertising is ethical, to an extent. If advertising didn’t exist, how would people know which product to buy and not buy? According to John E. Calfee, “…The information that advertising imparts helps consumers make better decisions,” (p.105). All advertising isn’t bad; it can provide useful information, like in the Truth ads, or in public service ads, like the Smokey the Bear ads or the One campaign ads (that want to fight AIDS). If advertisers didn’t advertise to certain groups of people, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs and making money. Advertisers advertise to certain age groups, nationalities, genders, etc. Most ads that are on television channels for children (such as Nickelodeon) are either for food or toys. I think advertisers advertise towards children because they know if they can persuade a kid or teen to buy their product, and get them hooked on the product, they will have a customer for life; this is called brand loyalty. If brand loyalty is established, then the consumer will only choose that particular product and no other.

Alcohol advertising can affect/ have an impact on young people and influence certain behaviors. If an ad contains a group of people having a good time and they happen to be drinking alcohol, the person watching the commercial may think that is a social norm and a common occurrence, and that it’s cool to drink. According to Riccio, “Whether liquor manufacturers are intentionally pitching their ads to teens is not important. The fact is, teenagers are watching and absorbing the message that drinking is a fun, cool, and popular thing to do,” (p.92). This quote reiterates the same for cigarette/tobacco ads. Cigarette ads used to dominate and were very popular for advertisers and with consumers, but then when the effects of smoking cigarettes came out, these ads were banned from television. According to Dave Dhaval and Henry Saffer, “…Alcohol is among the most heavily advertised consumer goods…” (p.3). If they ban cigarette ads on television, why not alcohol ads? Drinking excessive amounts of alcohol can harm a person, just like smoking too many cigarettes is can. According to Riccio, “Alcohol is the drug most used and abused by adolescents- more than marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and pills combined…Alcohol is usually a factor in the three leading causes of death among youth: accidents, suicide, and homicide…Drinking encourages reckless behavior,” (p.92).

Some countries even have restrictions on times alcohol ads can be aired, why doesn’t the United States? They air alcohol ads throughout the day. Granted these ads aren’t on television channels for children, but they are on other channels children and young people watch, like ABC or FOX, where they play game shows for kids and families. Look at the Super Bowl for instance, people from various ages watch the Super Bowl, and most watch it for the ads. Most of the ads that are aired are for alcohol. A young person may not think of an alcohol ad as an alcohol ad, because the ad my contain animals or be funny, and the alcohol part may go straight over their heads, because it doesn’t interest them. However, not everyone is the same; another young person may see the same ad and think differently.

Kmarx?

It is quite humorous how Russ Baker mentions company such as Kmart in regards to sensitivity and advertisement (Baker, p119). According to a study done a few years ago, Kmart had some explaining to do when faced with sweatshop accusations.

“Factories included Al Shahaed Apparel & Textile and Honorway Jordan Ltd., both of which sow for K-Mart’s discount brand names. The lack of respect for workers’ basic human rights includes:

• Human trafficking and involuntary servitude of guest workers
• Confiscation of workers’ passports and denial of legally required identification cards
• Routine work shifts of 15 to 16 hours. More commonly, workers were forced to work through 38, 48, and even 72 hour shifts at Al Shahaed Apparel & Textile
• No sick days, paid vacations, or government holidays allowed
• Wages below the legal minimum
• Sporadic pay
• Inadequate and unsanitary working conditions
• Reports of sexual abuse and rape
• Workers subject to pay reductions, humilitation, violence, and threats if production goals not met” (http://www.coopamerica.org/programs/rs/profile.cfm?id=251)

Can you say; Hypocrite?

Lets go commercial

As I was reading both articles (Yes by John Calfee and NO by Russ Baker) I realized that the two articles were comparing apples and oranges. Calfee and Baker gave insightful points on advertising; however, they were not opposing each other’s point of view. While Calfee informed us on the significance of advertisements, Baker focused more on the influence the ad. companies have in today’s society. While stating that, I did come away with an agreement with John Calfee.

John Calfee brought up a great point toward the beginning of the article (Calfee, p109). His example of fiber, and its connection to cancer summarized the importance of advertisements. With that one ad uproar, (fiber, cereal, cancer) a chain of events led to corporate and public discussion; exchange of information, and more importantly, competition.

Through advertising we, as a society, can better judge products that are on display and understand our options. In a capitalistic world we accept or reject whatever is displayed. While they might be annoying sometimes, ads are necessary in order to, at the very least, inform us of our available choices.

The Dangers in Marketing to Youth

http://www.co.el-dorado.ca.us/publichealth/HealthColumns/2007/Marketing%20Alcohol_to_Kids_April_25_2007.html

Young children are not yet mature enough to make decisions and choices when it comes to what they see being advertised. Countries such as Sweden and Norway ban all advertising to children under 12 and in Greece, toy commercials can onbly run at certain hours. (Taking Sides, 92) These ads banned are for toys, things that are made for children, if the impact of advertising is so great for adolescents, then something should be done to protect kids from the advertisements for alcohol and tobacco, which are made for adults. The problem with advertising is that the whole story isnt told about the product, assumptions and impliations are made that by using the product, which are not always true. (93) There are so many underlying things surrounding advertising, that some advertisers even take things to a level in which they beleive that what is surrounding the ad is just as important and has the same effect as what is in the ad. Companies such as Colgate-Palmolive won't allow ads in media where the content is "anti-social or in bad taste." They prescreen any questionable content before finalizing the placement of their ads. (119) This raises the questions about how ethical advertising really is, and the exact effects it has on consumers.

The super bowl, one of the biggest advertising events of the year; it has been said that more people watch for the commercials than for the game itself. One of the most popular and highly anticipated campaigns each year would be the Budweiser ads. These ads feature cartoon characters which offer more humor and entertainment than it does information about the product. According to Marketing Alcohol to Kids, "It’s no wonder that after every recent Super Bowl game polls show viewers under 17 years of age prefer commercials for beer over any other product." I thought this was an interesting read. "For every million additional readers aged 12 to 19 years, beer advertising increases by 60 percent, while ads for distilled spirits increase by 30 percent." Alcohol is on the rise, according to How Alcohol Ads Target Teens, (93), "Alcohol is the drug most used and abused by adolescents." It is causing more problems due to the consequences both immediate, which include a decrease of grades in schools, drinking and driving, suicide, sexual behavior influenced by alcohol, and violence, as well as long term effects such as alcoholism and the likelihood of drinking as adults.

Today's youth is being hit left and right with more ads than they know what to do with. "Adolescence is a time of life marked by increased risk-taking, sensation-seeking and erratic behavior in the best circumstances. For some young people, alcohol can have a special allure, but as the Surgeon General report indicates, “This attraction occurs at the very time adolescents may not be fully prepared to anticipate all the effects of drinking alcohol.” When alcohol is being portrayed in such a positive light, as something fun and interesting, its no wonder children are getting involoved at such an early age. It sparks the curiosity in them to figure out exactly what it is they are missing.

This leaves the questions up for discussion:

Who should have control over what our adolescents are being exposed to, if anyone, whose responsibility is it? The government, society, families, companies?

What restrictions should be put on advertising? Times, placement, content?

Not everyone makes good choices -

Check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/09/17/internet.death.ap/index.html

It is of course a singualr case and should not be used as an argument - but I find interesting how far will people go.

looking at the big picture

In reading over these posts, everyone seems to have a lot of interesting perspectives and opinions on the subject of Media & Violence. It’s nice to see that we all can bring something to the table. And yet, while I’m aware that there are more and different aspects of this topic to be discussed than already mentioned, I feel the need to elaborate on a fellow students comment. I’m not ignoring the effects of media violence on our children, as I’m sure our class discussion will completely revolve around it, and because so, I’ve chosen to use my blog space as a means to point out a secondary issue that this topic brought up in my research and web searching. Jen posted her concerns that we are all so focused on the violence in the media and the effects it has on our societies youth, that we neglect the other issues that we should have with our children’s overall mass consumption of media, not only the violence within it. We begin to blame video games for violence instead of the actual crimes occurring on the streets around us. We think that it is the media that is projecting violence into our homes that is unavoidable. And, the fact of the matter is that, it is nearly impossible, despite all the parental controls on cable systems, browsers, etc, to have absolute control over the violence in all of your children’s programming from television or internet content. The control falls to the attention of the parent who needs to take a more active role in the entertainment and free time of their child’s life. Let’s say that we were able to have complete control and eliminate violence from at least two forms of media in your children’s daily routines (using Television and video games as examples). After we were through and had complete control over the violence factor, we would then have to move on and begin to focus on the fact that our children are still sitting in front of those media outlets and becoming unsocial, non-communicative and unhealthy.
See
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-04-2007/0004655823&EDATE=

the fact that gaming corporations have actually taken strides to effectively resolve the issue linked between obesity and over use of video games clearly shows that there are more issues when examining media’s effect on children than just the presence of violence alone.

Not yet Rated

Recently I saw the Documentary This film is not yet rated. It is an excellent film, and I highly recommend it. There is one clip that caught my attention. The director and actress form the film The Cooler were interviewed on the subject of censorship. The director stated that his film originally received a NC-17 rating (No child under the age of 17 admitted, period), due to one sex scene. An NC-17 practically means that the film is doomed financially. The advertisers pull their money, the movie theaters refuse to play it. The movie has no chance of making a profit.

The controversial scene consisted of oral sex between a male and female. For one second, there is a shot of the female’s pubic hair. The review board felt that it was too much for an R rating. They gave the director and ultimatum: loose the pubes and you get your R rating.

The director was furious with the decision. His artistic work would be compromised for one second of pubic hair. Ultimately, he caved in, due to the pressure from his production company, and took out the scene in theaters. But you can find the scene on the DVD.

However, there is a twist to the whole story. Around the same time The Cooler was in theaters, Sin City, an over the top violent thrill ride, was in theaters with an R rating. The director explained that his kids most likely would be harmed more while watching Sin City than being exposed to a pubic hair for one second. Obviously he did not condone for Kids to watch an R rated film, but he merely pointed out that there is a double standard when it comes to violence and sex.

what is with the age range?

I think that one of this is one of the hardest things to research I mean there is nothing concrete about the evidence because there is so much of the human element involved. Nothing is guaranteed especially dealing with violence and I think much of this has to do with who a person already is, if there life is bad and violence is something they know, then I feel like violence is the answer for them. For me I don't think that video games or violence on TV make people more likely to commit violent acts. I do wonder if rather than focusing on TV violence creating violent people I think there might be a more interesting study to focus on TV, the internet, and video games helping to create a person's isolation from society and that leading to violence or depression. I don't know just a thought.

I feel like these studies might be too controlled because of the laboratory setting as Jib Fowles said. I mean it does make sense that in a new environment kids act differently than they do at home. I also had a concern with these experiments, for me the age range seems enormous. One in particular ranged from 8 to 15 and another 11 to 16. I just feel as though this is an enormous range. Children are constantly changing and growing and I think that to lump all of these ages together is a huge mistake on any researchers part. I mean we all know that there is a really big difference in the way an 8 year old acts and a 15 year old acts. There lives are completely different and that is why I really have trouble trusting these experiments. I feel like and acceptable age range might be 2 years at the most for children.

What are the effects of media violence on public opinion? The most exposured are the children.

Mass-media has been acused along the time that drives people towards a large set of activities and behaviours which otherwise wouldn’t have been considered and towards acepting beliefs, values and idea which otherwise wouldn’t have suported.

Since the wide spread of the televised image, its impact on the audience has been thoroughly studied especially on children and youth. Reserchers have emphasized the negative aspects, underlining the fact that mass-media causes antisocial and psichological activities defined and clasified as „problems” or „threats” of „antisocial”, „damaging” or „dangerous” nature.

Certain groups of population have been identified as being especially vulnerable to such efects, for example children, young people and persons with low education.
The website
http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/issues/violence/effects_media_violence.cfm presents a few results of research studies regarding the effects of media violence, especially on children.

The most important conclusion of these studies is that the exposure of children to programs that promote violence determines long term aggressive behaviors in their evolution as social entities.
Starting from the article "Research on the Effects of Media Violence" published on the website, I tried to find out explanations regarding the media aggressivity on children using the field of psycho-sociology.

During the childhood, every individual is easy to influence, the process of learning being made by imitating other people. Thus, the violence in mass-media influences the behavior of children in an indirect way, through the impact it has on learning values and attitudes. Maybe not all the children become violent but they will tolerate easily the violent behavior of others.

Having worked at a TV station in Romania for 4 years, I had the chance to monitor thousand of mesages from viewers regarding the content of the TV shows. Many mesages reflected the fear of the public that the TV might transform in a „school of crime and delinquency”. Young people have the tendency to reproduce the behavior models seen on TV, which in many cases are in contradiction with the normal socio-moral values. Mass-media does not promote in a suficient way the moral standards accepted in the society, or it presents distorted versions of these norms. This only produces aditional confusion regarding the aceptable norms in the society.

I consider that the frequency of violence showing as a common fact on TV allows for unnoticed, disimulated learnig of sofisticated agresivity techniques by the viewers. The media violence afects the cognitive, axiologic and afective of the psychic, a result of presenting the violent world as a normal one. In the same time, media violence de-sensitizes the receivers (viewers) with respect to the victims.
The psycho-social traits, the atitudes and opinions of the individuals, the socio-cultural context, reference gropus, the weakening of the social control and the economical situation determines the way the media violence is perceived.

According to the Research on the Effects of Media Violence article I bring to your attention, family has an importnat role in order to diminish the negative impact of media on the children. The nocive character of the messages is corelated with existing situations in family and society, situations which can not be ignored or omited. The negative influences of mass-media are exerted especially in unstable relations between individuals and their environment, in situation of social dezintegration, of uncertain normative and value, of an exacerbated spocial tensions and conflicts, of insecurity, poverty and unfulfilled expectations, of frusttration and marginalization.

Conjugating these messages with the mediatic mesage increases the negative impact of mass-media on violence. Klapper (1960) is a supporter of the theory which presents mass-media aggresivity as an enhancing factor of innate agressivity of individuals. He supports the idea that mass-media violence does not directly contribute to the increase in aggresivity but activates the existing inclination of the individual.

The perception of the aggresive message varies from one individual to the other, in function of the measure in which norms and cultural values, social roles and personal characteristics are determined for the violent behaviour. Thus, violent images on the screen can enhance the norms established in the violent individual. In the same time, the non-violent person will select the aggresive images and will perceive only the messages that fit his/her non-violent norms. According to this theory, violent broadcasts and shows act upon the behavior of unbalanced, unstable and less socially integrated individuals.

I consider that it is dificult to establish a direct causal and incontestable relation between the violent behavior and mass-media but a thing is for sure, that mass-media represents a promoting factor of this behavior.
This thing is more opbvious when it is about young people. Even from the beginning of the life, mass-media plays a fundamental role in the genesis of conceptions, in the development of ideas, in structuring the perceptions and thoughts and along his/her development, the child has the tendency to separate herself from the values and norms transmitted by the family and to become more receptive to the values promoted and presented in mass-media. We cannot say that television or mass-media in general invent the violence. They only put it on the stage and help in presenting it in the houses of the individuals, who receive and assimilate it according to their own ste of values and norms.

I conclude by supporting the idea that, despite the idea that mass-media is capable of inciting to violence, they also have the potential to prevent violent behaviour. This is because mass-media plays a primordial role in informing the individual and it has the potential to employ the attention of the public to the complex aspects of violence. By sensitizing the viewers to the problems related to violence, mass-media has the role of stimulating the public to become a more sofisticated consumer of information and to benefit of its educational potential.

I invite you to say your opinion regarding the impact of mass-media violence on the public and especially on the children.

Some supplementary materials

Since this issue of video games causing violence is so interesting to me, I found some blogs of individuals who discuss it.

After you read them, you will realize that our children are all destined to become pirates.

Blog 1

Blog 2

Blog 3

Blog 4

Lose the hierarchies. The issue is individual choice.

Whatever media you consume is your own fault. Any action you take is your responsibility.

Video games definitely would not cause as much violent behavior as violent film or television, but both are not the primary cause of violence itself. If media was not present, violence would still occur. (Cain and Abel anyone?) The correlation and "judgment" on media violence for creating violence is weak at best. This is especially true with video games.

Take the example of Grand Theft Auto. In my opinion, that is a horrible video game. I have only watched someone play it for five minutes before I thought it was pointless, but from reading about it and seeing it then, it really is essentially pointless. The objectives in the game to "gain" anything by completing missions for drug dealers and gangsters are not entertaining to me. I play plenty of video games, but I choose which ones I play. Even though Grand Theft Auto is a horrible game with tons of violence and sexual content, I have no problem with someone choosing to play it. That is their decision. If they want to take pipes to people's heads and shoot cops in a video game, that is their business. The argument that this causes violent behavior is ridiculous.

The issue isn't that video games cause violence. It is the potential addiction and isolation of the individual that causes their social behaviors to suffer, and in turn lead to irrational actions like violence. One cannot argue despite this chain I just laid out that video games cause violence because ANYTHING someone is addicted to can cause irrational social behaviors. Alcohol, sex, television, and drugs are some of many examples of potentially addictive behaviors. If someone plays a single player video game first person shooter in their basement in the dark and CHOOSES to do so, and then the player chooses to shoot someone in real life to solve one's problems, both of those, in my opinion, are two separate choices and not interrelated. Even though the player may draw on past experience [video game] in the decision to shoot someone in reality, one still has to choose whether or not to pull the trigger. To be cliche, guns don't kill people, people kill people.

In all of the articles arguing about media violence, the common thread is this black and white absolute of "keep them on the market as is" or "get rid of them permenantly". Both of these solutions make no sense. This, like many issues in reality and life, is not something that can be solved one way or the other.

In arguments like this, individuals feel they know the point of view of all the population involved. Dr. Anderson feels that video games are horrible things that cause violence, while the Economist is relatively ambivalent to video games. Like government structure, or any hierarchy, these individuals want to make the choice for us. It is not for these people to choose. Why should things be censored when one has the choice on whether to consume the media itself? (Keep in mind I am not talking about media in the public square, like a billboard. I am talking about media from the television, video games, and movie films, and internet as well) If someone wants to be a porn guru, that is their choice. I think that is a bad choice, personally, but who am I to tell someone not to download porn? Why should I be the one to tell someone else what one can and cannot choose? Wasn't America built on the idea that it's the civic responsibility for the individual to choose what is good for oneself?

There is a way to solve this argument. All the information and research should be put out there in the public square so anyone can access it. If someone doesn't want to research or think about this issue, that is their business. If someone does, that person will have the information one would need in order to make an informed decision. No hierarchy or censor board should inhibit any video game, or any media, since at the end of the day the controller is in your hands, not theirs.