ads Ads ADS

       Wake up ads, get dressed ads, go out ads, go eat ads, everywhere ads. In this common day and era we are exposed to about 2000 ads per day. You may think that some are unaffected but its embedded in our subconscious in a way that we are responding to the ads without noticing. For example, when people have colds they often ask if the can get a Kleenex rather than saying a tissue, or a Band-aid instead of a bandage. Why because over the years the constant advertisement has become a subliminal message that made this seem normal. The ones that usually give of a long lasting affect comes from crowdsourcing, product placement, and good old fashion peer pressure.
       Crowdsourcing is when a certain company wants their costumers to help sell their product by creating an attention getting ad or other means of promotion. One example would be the Doritos annual commercial competition. The winner of the "Crash the Superbowl" competition gets their ad placed in the Superbowl with an opportunity to possibly make more ads for the Doritos brand. Since the ad was created by a consumer rather than a public relations executive it may be more relate-able to the other consumers and it will encourage people to buy Doritos so they may used them in their commercial shoot. When their are people all across the nation buying bags of Doritos in hope of getting a 30 second slot in the Superbowl the competition alone raises the marketing sales.

       Another marketing tool is product placement, which is when their are ads throughout a television show or film within the items the characters use or pass by while it is being shot. There are some memorable movies that poke fun at how bad it has become in Hollywood such as Wayne's World and The Truman Show. Movies still have product placement now more than ever as well as television series who often try to use the advertisement money for their show. They have almost created a symbiotic relationship in which the company needs the show to display their product in order for them to have successful sales as well as the show needs the company to provide money and promotion for the show so that they can keep the viewers entertained and gain more viewers.This type of advertisement seems much needed in the film and television industry so it may not be going a way for some time.
       Finally, peer pressure, the type of advertisement that no one gets paid for yet is probably the most affective and most deeply embedded into your mind. Peer pressure works because it is a lot more personal and requires repetition majority of the time. Your friend may constantly drink a type of soda and you may not drink soda at all; however, one day you are with out any other beverages so your friend offers you the soda they always drink and after a few refusals you give in. Later you decide get stuck in the same situation where your only options are sodas and all of your friends are drinking the same soda your friend was drinking earlier because you are a none soda drinker you going to drink what your friends drinks again. On a later date your friends is no longer around and you have an option of sodas and nothing else, you are most likely to buy that soda again.
       As you can tell ads surround us on a daily basis in a number of ways. Some try to make it seem like it is your time to shine and do your part as a consumer to help get other consumers and as a prize you can continue to do so. Others try to subliminally shove it in your face throughout movies and shows encouraging you to imitate the stars and use those products so that they can pay for more advertisement which helps pay for your shows. Some just wait for themselves to be popular enough that people will suggest their products to others to help them sell rather they do it themselves. Regardless of how you feel about their impact, they will always be here like Marshall McLuhan said "Ads are the cave art of the 20th century."

Fame or Infamy

       After watching such movies as American Gangster, Public Enemies, and Lawless, I thought what is the difference between fame and infamy? I know that you get fame from doing something incredible or just doing something really well and infamy you get from doing incredible crimes or doing a crime really well. So what is to say that the something that I talked about for fame is not a crime? It use to be clear but now that the media is glorifying gangsters and other criminals it is truly hard to say. In this blog I will discuss the movies on gangsters, television shows on criminals, and its affect on America.
       The definition of "gangster" is a member of a gang of violent crimes. The word's definition is full of negative words so why is it glamorized more than most of the other historical lifestyles in America. In the movie America Gangster they showed much of the luxuries of being a top notch gangster. It showed how regular blue collar workers were not making enough money and with the given opportunity got into the drug dealing industry with no questions asked. This caused an immediate change in their life. They could afford better clothes, drive better cars, and live in better houses. The film also followed the gangster, Frank Lucas, life as he dated beautiful women, got invited to multiple exclusive events, and made many people around him happy. They continued to show off his cool persona making people and great since of style. Though they did depict a horrible ending to his spectacular lifestyle, they minimized the importance by shining most of the attention on the positives that came along with being a ganster.
       If the movies were not bad enough we even have television shows praising the gangster lifestyle. There are multiple shows based off of America's corrupt history. They are either based off of one person's life story or a combination of multiple gangster's lives or events in their lives. One television show that does this well is Boardwalk Empire that depicts gangster activities during the early development of the Atlantic City that America has grown to known. Outside of the occasional homicides, interrogations, and death
threats it seems as if most of the gangster live a glamorous luxurious life. They always drive the fastest cars, have the prettiest women, and obtain other unnecessary items while maintaining happiness.
       America has taken very little from these shows, but from what they did get from the media was not positive. The overall message obtained was to get money by any means necessary, which meant if you were not getting paid enough you should become a gangster. If you believe you should have more and corporate America is not providing you with what you want or need, then by all means you should rob, steal, and kill to get what you need. It also says you can have a lot of fun while doing it too. However, for these young females it has taught them to be seductive so that a man will go out and do these things in order to provide for you. The other part of the message obtained is do not get caught or you will end up dead or in jail. What they should have taken from that is that, if you don't do any of these things you can live a long time with out worrying about dying or going to jail.
       All in all the media glorifies the gangster life which is why others do as well and begin to immolate the most legendary gangsters rather they be fictional or non-fictional. Everyone wants to be rich and famous, to live the life of luxury and adrenaline, to do more in their 25-30 years of life then those who have live way pass the current life expectancy rate. Since it looks a lot harder to do it the right way people are already drawn to the criminal life but now that they know the can go down in history for it it is even more appealing. Audience now have the Tony Montana mind frame "In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women," this quotes motivates more gangsters than Ray Lewis speeches motivates football players.

I am my own reporter

     

The world of media is changing. Information has become quicker and easier to access making it more convenient to get news.  Everyone can find out things on their own, broadcast it themselves, and limit it to what information they receive to things that pertain to themselves. With that being said, actual news papers, news radio stations, and news television stations are beginning to become obsolete. In other words everyone has become their own news reporter through word of mouth, social media, and research.
       Word of mouth is a form of information that has been around as long as information valuable enough to tell was. Word of mouth is not always the most accurate source of information but is the most convenient and often the most trusted. Why, might you ask, because it always comes from some one you know, like a friend or co-worker, that has the same concerns and values as you. Therefore, when they come to tell you something about the world outside of theirs, you know it is something that they think is information you may be interested in. The flaw in this source is that though it is trusted you never truly know where the person got the information which makes it about as accurate as a rumor. The person who you heard it from could have heard it from another person who could have over heard it wrong. Another possibility is that your source only got a part of the information and you may not know the whole story. This is why word of mouth may not be the greatest source but still the source that gets the most attention from listeners.

     Social media is very similar to word of mouth because it is still coming from people you chose to be in your social life but on a much larger scale. Social media sites have more recently been showing advertisements and news updates based off your post and search engine entries, making them more relevant to the user. When most people see new information on their social network timeline they often comment towards the post to ask the user who posted the comment to elaborate on the information rather than look up further information on the subject because they figured that either the person who posted the initial comment did their research and if not another user who did will either answer your question by backing them up or correcting them. The only reason this is assumed online more than in person is because they know the person who posted it has internet access which means they have the convenience and capability that a person walking down the street does not. This is why the third type of information source has become another preferred source of information.
 
      The third source of information people use to be their own news reporters is research. This usually is for the people who see a post, over hear a conversation, catch the end of a story and look up the whole thing. Its easier to do now a days because of search engines, online encyclopedia's, websites such as wiki-leaks, etc. These people usually look up current events to find out details so they can later be educated in a conversation or argument on the subject, if someone ask questions about it, or just to know how it may effect them. Regardless of the reason these people have the most accurate story and often go on to blog or post about it and become others primary source of information about the subject.

       This cycle of information swapping has caused the news papers and stations to be less and less relevant. So now instead of going by a newsstand and buying and reading a physical/ tangible paper they now can go to the news paper's website and only read the articles pertaining to their interest. Instead of watching or listening to the news on television or radio they just go look up clips on the website for channels that they usually watch. This all started with word of mouth then later moved to social media backed up by research which is easier to do with today's technology.

Censored Beep Parental Advisory: The world through twelve eyes

       Sometimes I channel surf and feel like I have seen everything or the programs are too similar. Through research I found out it was because of parent companies such as Disney, Viacom, CBS, and Comcast. As far as television goes there is really only six companies that run the networks that viewers have to choose from. Companies like Viacom, Disney, AOL Time Warner, Vivendi, News Corporation, and Bertelsmann have turned television media into an oligopoly. An oligopoly is when a small amount of companies run a certain type of business. Out of all these media moguls I decided to cover the company Viacom. Viacom owns broadcast companies such as MTV, Nickelodeon, VH1, CMT, Comedy Central, and BET. These stations cover a wide span of demographics of viewers which explains why people think they do not have much choice in what they see. I understand how they feel yet at the same time I feel like their is plenty to watch but I think we can solve this problem eventually given the right situations.
       I do like the fact that Viacom has much to choose from such as BET for their black target audience, CMT for their country music lovers target audience, or Nickelodeon for their children and family target audience. I do not think the problem is cable television not having enough options but instead the viewers having an over whelming desire for more and different materials. People want all the information they think they missing because they over heard something else from another source. Audiences in the present day world of media have way more options and know way more information then audiences 25 years ago; however, spectators perceive it as less or insufficient because they are use to constantly receiving more in media. My grandmother constantly reminds me that when television was first popular it only had around three channels and it went off at a certain time. In my whole lifetime I experienced television as a 24 hour, several hundred or more channels, colored source of entertainment that always had something to offer. When I was young I tuned in for educational purposes watching Sesame Street and Arthur. A few years later I found television to be a source of entertainment, so I watched shows such as All That, Kenan and Kel, and Cousin Skeeter. More years went by and as a young teen I felt I was ready for TV14 rated shows such as Degrassi, Family Matters, and Everybody Hates Chris. Now as a young adult I find myself watching more adult shows like The Game, Guy Code, and The Hard Times of RJ Berger. So as far as I was concerned I could always watch what I wanted and sometimes even what I needed. However I do understand why people feel the urge to request more. After all "When you're used to filet Mignon it's hard to go back to hamburger helper" - Jay-Z. Meaning we are conditioned to all these great things why settle for less now?  

        I think what Viacom brings to television is very entertaining and full of options but just like most media fanatics I could use more shows and channels. There is much this world has to offer us but not all of it makes it to television for one reason or another. Viewers believe this is another type of censorship where the media hides the things they do not want us to know or see for what ever reason, and blow up and repeat the things they want us to watch, hear, feel, and remember. Most people consider them conspiracy theorist but I do believe they might be on to something. For instance, moments such as the attack on the world trade center or the Holocaust they always say never forget; however hundreds of years of slavery and the Rodney King beating is something they want people to get over. There is nothing wrong with getting over things but why pick and choose, how do they pick and choose which one is more important than the other, and why don't "we the viewers" get a say, after all it is all for us.


       What should be done about all this is to possibly adding more channels and television shows but that would just make these oligopolies stronger, richer, and have a larger fan base to support them. What can be done is being done but very poorly and has been taking viewers away from television and towards the internet. What can be done is for local stations to allow local broadcasters to show their most recent idea of entertainment and if it does well these media moguls will pick them up and add them as a program on one of their stations. In reality, local stations mostly show news and don't give many people a chance, which is why people take their business to the internet hoping they will get recognized there.

       In conclusion, I believe like many people do. These stations have been curving our media which in turn has been curving our thoughts and view of the world. This got me thinking back to the Truman show. All these shows on a loop and people no matter the age imitating them, and us only knowing what we've been told. With all these smoke and mirrors it's hard to believe your eyes sometimes.

Dun da da Dun da DUNNNNN.. the interweb

       The year was 1998. The computer, which resembled the television in shape, was extremely huge with a very limited amount of icons on the screen. The colors were very over saturated and all programs needed a disc in order to be activated, including the internet. Once I clicked on the AOL icon for the internet I would get this sound of a phone dialing numbers followed by a screeching sound. This let me know that the all mighty internet was coming. On a few occasions it did not work on the first try but back then it was okay because it was faster than anything we have ever known. Not to mention if some one was on the internet you could not use the phone. Little did we know we would come so much farther in the next 10 years. The whole process of how we access the internet and how we live our life would change.

       The internet was suppose to be the new wave of business, media, and education. When the internet became available to the masses its image was a family oriented vehicle for information. The place where everyone in the family could get the information they needed faster than any other available source. Dad could get his sport updates, mom could find read the news, the children could

play learning games, and the young upcoming business man can communicate his business. All the necessities were there without the distractions, inappropriateness, and dangers of the real world.
       What the internet became was a vehicle for all entertainment, information, and communication. The internet is no longer just for leisure and convenience, now it is a necessity. Majority job applications, all colleges, and memberships require an email. Social media and other internet post determine whether or not you get a certain job. Young children use it for education and gaming purposes. I even have to have a blog for class. There are now being books made just for the internet. Newspapers are being printed less because the major ones have websites. The internet is starting to monopolize the way people live they're daily life. People shop, talk, learn, inform, entertain, watch, and do business all on the internet. I worry about what this means for the future of mankind.
     In the future there might not be a reason to leave the house. If a person can go to grade school, college, and get a job all through the internet they are no longer legally forced to leave the house. A

person can find a date, new friends, and new clothes so there is no social reason for them to leave the house. You can even buy houses, furnishings, and appliances so it is possible to find a location outside your parents house to live.
       We went from large boxes and dialing tones to 5 inch screens with the internet at the tap of a finger. No more loud noises or waiting for your internet to literally dial up. No the instant you type in something the image can appear in front of you. Everything you want and need you van obtain online with out a desktop or wires. I just hope we don't get carried away.

This is Private

       Recently, in class, we read and talked about privacy. It was mostly about privacy on the internet and how we do not really have much of it. Privacy to me is the choice on whether or not you want to share information, pictures, etc. of yourself or moments in your life. It also means choosing how much attention you want to receive.  In this post I will cover 3 points of privacy in the media; such as social networking affecting business, possessions of post, and privacy contracts.

 

       A constant complaint over the internet is that people the websites privacy settings and guidelines are not private enough. Some accounts were just made for personal life which usually includes friends and family who are not judging your actions on the internet because they know you. However, when a person applies for jobs all their personals become visible in any standard background check. I find this unfair because then whatever you post or were tagged in becomes a factor on whether or not you can get or keep a job. It is true that you can choose what you post and currently most people know to choose wisely but people still don't have control of what pictures or other information about them may get posted by another person. Not to mention social networks were made just so friends can have an update on your life and what you do on your free time. I feel that if I was an employer as long as you do not connect your business profile with your personal profile and you don't have anything in the name of your business on your personal profile, then it should not affect my decision on whether to hire someone or not. I understand companies saying that it looks bad for the company if a person of importance see's your other profile but that person must also understand that this is your personal profile to show that you have a life too. Maybe their friends do not take pictures at every event or outing but common people do because it makes the best memories.

       Though we are constantly being filmed and shot by our friends does not mean we want our moments shown to everyone in the world. Social networks were made to share things to your family and friends so why do these corporations think its acceptable for them to use these photos and post however they please? Many people can argue that people knew when they were signing nothing was ever really private so they should have been aware that to only post things they do not care if their job sees. I feel like that ruins the whole freedom aspect of social media. Another argument is that this is all written in the privacy contract.

       Although they make sure you agree to the privacy contract, the contract is usually unnecessarily long full of legal terms that the common user may not understand. Not to mention once you sign on its really hard to find. Most people click it with out a second thought because of past experiences with other programs and long contracts. So I do not think they really made these contracts for anyone to read or understand. If they really wanted someone to read it, the contract would be in laymen terms and much shorter or at least an page that covers all the main points.
         In conclusion, I think we lost all privacy and in the not so distant future these things you post on social media may in fact only affect your social life. However, until then we, the people of the internet, have to post like our boss is reading. Contrary to what most people are forced to post, I believe no matter how educated the person is in legal contracts we all should have a fair shot at privacy.

All For Show

       So we've been watching Truman Show in class. The movie made a few comments about media in our lives, and even though the movie was released in 1998 the references seemed relevant. In the movie the director of the show tried to build a utopia for Truman; however, in order to insure the safety and innocence of a utopia, as well as 24 hour surveillance of Truman's life, the director had to enforce it which caused a dystopia. Because of the constant surveillance it was hard to find the line between public and private much like reality shows of today. This has also has makes it harder to define real life and performance. This raises my suspicions if reality shows have a code or ethics or not.
       The Truman Show showed just how much media effects our lives. The Truman show was watched nation wide and because of it's success people bought memorabilia related to the show, quoted the show daily, and even attended bars dedicated to the show. The same thing started happening with recent reality shows such as Jersey Shore, Love and Hip-Hop, and American Idol. Each new reality show gets more and more in depth into people's private lives so I do not believe this movie is too far of a stretch.
       People have been their children's lives to share with everyone for a while now and most people who put their child up for adoption do it so their kids will live a safer or "better" life. So for someone to offer up their baby as a subject of a show so that they can live a perfect life doesn't sound far fetched to me. But what is a perfect life? How does one obtain one? How does one maintain one? These questions have to be answered before someone can attempt to create a utopia. The idea of a utopia varies from person to person so if someone were to play god much like the director of the Truman Show they would have to know that person's idea of a utopia, otherwise it becomes a dystopia. When people feel that they need more they go elsewhere to find more or maybe search where they didn't before to find out what they were missing. Stopping them from doing that would begin the realization that they are stuck in a dystopia. Whenever the person finds out they are being watched they are going to want to know how much and for how long.
       Most people want the choice of whether their information is shared or not. Privacy isn't just the right to be naked in your house without worrying if people can see you. Privacy is being able to have secrets and being able to get lost every once in a while. Privacy is the power to choose who you want to know things about you. However, reality show stars like to make you feel as if they have none and you are seeing every juicy moment of their life.
       These reality shows are projecting a false reality. It may be unscripted but I do not believe it is not all planned. I believe the producer and director of these shows send them on certain assignments that contradict whatever may keep them calm or happy to get a good reaction for the audience. That combined with the fact that the stars know they are being filmed, so they amplify their emotions more, is what keeps these viewers watching. Since people have found out this formula reality television has became more and more ruthless.
       I don't believe these shows have a code of ethics. These reality stars get into brutal fights, over indulge in substances, and have sex with whoever whenever they feel, and it all goes on television. If they did have a code it should be that of Jerry Springer or Maury. They can do or say whatever as long as no one gets seriously hurt or, in the case of intoxication and sleeping around, they don't show it as a positive image.
       As far as these ideas coming into play, I don't see it happening. At least not combined in one show. If it does happen how ever it will be years from now and a very big deal, much like Truman.

"Real eyes realize real lies"- Dwayne Michael Carter Jr.

Normally not normal

       Hello, My name is Joe-Joe. No it's not short for Joseph or Josiah; its short for Jordan. I'm 19 years old but most people say I look around 12. I consider myself a hip-hop head. I listen to a lot of classic hip-hop but when it comes to current my music I listen to everything to decide who I will continue to listen to. In a way that's how I choose my friends as well. I introduce myself to everyone to decide and through our following conversations I come up with a conclusion of whether we are going to be good friends or not. I am very open with my thoughts and opinions so there is rarely silence in my conversations. 
       As far as media, it effects my life in many aspects. Media happens to be a great source of information, entertainment, and communication. It has been getting easier to get more information as well as information that is more relevant to the viewer. Through social media I feel like I can get enough updates of current events that I can choose whether to search further or not. Because of that I rarely feel the need to watch the news. Media usually gives people suggestions on how to dress and act in public but it also gives a false image of what normal people live like. With reality shows being so popular people seem to forget more and more that if the people were really that down to earth they wouldn't be on television.