Unit 4, Issue 12, pg. 256

Is Hate Speech in the media directly affecting our culture?
Once again, I thought that the author of our textbook did not find adequate articles to explain whether hate speech is affecting our culture.  For example, the "yes" article does not use his target audience effectively.  Instead, he alienates certain people and does not use convincing main points to argue that hate speech is affecting our culture.  He cites the usage of videogames as an agent that promotes the usage of hate speech.  For example, the player becomes the violent hero.  He further questions how and why our culture has become so mean spirited, and as a result, he explores the culture of our society's addiction to violent video games.  In addition he analyzes how modern day politics uses hate speech in debates and presidential elections as a way to exercise power over the opponent, and to display his superiority to the other canidate. I completely agree with this statement.  For example, when Senator Barbra Boxter went up against her fellow Republican Canidate Carly Fiona, both sides used hate speech to try to gain control of the debate.  I think I can say with confidence, that most of the audience was tired of using slanderous hate speech in the debates, and instead, just wanted to hear the facts.  The "no" article examined the content of web pages of 4 extremist groups that use persuasive techniques to gain acceptance on their stance, and that these websites fall back on old laurels instead of using out right hate speech, while downplaying the message of hate in their main messages.  The author goes further to even question if hate speech should be legal.  The article really does not thoroughly discuss this question, but kind of discusses the question in a half hearted manner.  I personally noticed irony in the "no" article with his "black sheep comment" in the concluding paragraph, while he was discussing white supremacist hate groups.  I think that hate speech defiinitely affects our culture, and is displayed in the media, whether it be on television, radio, or online.

Unit 1 Issue 4, p. 67

Does Media Cause individuals to develop negative body images?
While reading this particular issue, I found aspects of it be rather subjective within their concept of "being-as-object".  I thought that the author was trying to convey that women are being looked at as objects.  Instead the author might have been misunderstood to have an opinion of the being of the woman to be subject, when I strongly believe that this is not the case.  The media does have some influence in how girls view their own body image, but a lot of it does in fact come from external sources, such as men.  Whether it be due to men feeling imasculine in front of wholesome and curvy women, or men's body sizes shrinking because modern day jobs consisting of non-manual labor, their is definitely a dilemna with lots of men believing that women are "fat", when in fact in most cases, they are in reality, not fat at all.  There is a modern problem and theme in our society of the fear of fact.  It is a contemporary problem of the modern world .  The question I have to both of these authors is this: is the ad driving the image?  Or is the image driving the ad?  I think that both questions are valid, and both have factors and an impact in how women develop negative body images.  In addition, there are also problems in defining what it means to be healthy.  There are people in society who are overweight, and do have a reason to be concerned, while there are others who are way too skinny and have lost touch with reality in what it means to be healthy.  There is also a convergence of roles in this problem, it is now affecting both women and men.  Even athletes are subject and not objects to the issue.  It is an issue that is indeed fueled by the media, but by no means is the media the only outlet to blame this problem of people in modern day society, facing problems with negative body images.

RA # 3

RA # 3

My topic is regarding the Dove Ad commercial, which is a response to other competitive companies such as Jergen’s and Olay, that do not show “true beauty” on their commercials.  Due to my interest in advertising companies, I thought that the specificity of the Dove Ad would be a great topic to conduct my research project on, considering that this particular Dove Ad is a response to its other competing skin care companies which include, but are not limited to Jergen’s and Olay.  My question to the sample size of 50 people that I would conduct my research on would be:  After viewing this ad, are you more hesitant to buy skin care products other than Dove?  There already is existing literature on the Dove Ad campaign, both criticizing it and supporting it.  I would like to submit my research project in the format of being a worker for the competing company of Dove, and address what my research has found, and how our company should revamp our “ad campaign”.

Hypothesis:  I am arguing that ad companies are going to loose money for the release of this dove ad commercial, and that once people see the dove ad, they will be more hesitant to buy the competing skin care lines of Jergen’s and  Nivea, because the Dove ad commercial is “outing” these companies for air brushing models skin, and creating a “false image” of what is real.  For example, Nivea’s false promise of getting rid of unwanted cellulite from their “miracle cream”, or Jergen’s false promise of a young and tan healthy glow that can hide the presence of wrinkles or acne. 

Plan of Action:  I would show the ad to only women, because these advertising companies are addressing their commercials to only women.  I want the sample size to be unbiased, in the sense that I incorporate women of all races, and have the age range be between 14 and 60.  Because all three of these companies are trying to sell products that eliminate acne and wrinkles, or other various signs of aging and cellulite problems, the age group is going to be wide, but will not include young girls or very old women, because these ad companies do not target those very young and old age groups. 

Method:  I will show the dove ad commercial to my sample size, and then show them the ad commercials of Jergen’s and Nivea, and ask them which skin care line they were most inclined to buy.  Before showing them the ad, I will also ask what skin care line, if any, that they used before.  I will let them know that all three ads were released around the same time :January of 2009.  All three ads are relative competitively, because each ad was released during the same month and year, which shows how Dove responded to previous ad campaigns of Jergen’s and Nivea, trying to make a “less bad” commercial.   The survey will be on paper, but I will pull up all 3 ads on youtube, that aired on TV, starting on the month of January 2009.

Results Summary:  The results will be in the form of a graph, which will visually show how these women responded.  It will be easy to understand, and will show the correlation of how the sample size responded to the competing skin care lines of Jergen’s and Nivea, after they saw the Dove ad commercial in comparison to the other two skin companies advertisements.   

Conclusion:  The results mean that the Skin Care Companies will need to respond to this dove ad commercial if my hypothesis is correct.  For example, Nivea and Jergen’s can revamp their ad campaigns by using the idea of persuasion and skepticism to work in tandem against dove so advertising can do its job in a competitive market; therefore, ads represent the seller’s self-interest due to the unremitting consumer interest in health: “We want healthy girls”.  There is overwhelming evidence that unregulated economic sources dictate that much useful information will be provided by and ONLY brand advertising.  Using this fact, Jergen’s and Nivea can generate a great deal of information in a few words, responding to the Dove ad campaign.  For example, changing the commercials for the goodness of healthy girls and positive and realistic body image commercials through informational sparseness: We can promote healthyness and real beauty AND still hire naturally skinny and flawless skin models that might be one percent of the population, but they are still real and beautiful none the less.  The bottom line is that these companies just have to be more careful on the models that they choose, and careful not to use airbrushing and drastic touch ups.  Viewer’s natural emotional desires will STILL want to look like that, even though most people do not, and we can also call out other name brand skin care advertising that have not changed their commercials in response to the dove ad, and still have commercials that facilitate that “fake” and “unreal” woman on their commercials.  In conclusion, it will refute the naïve idea that advertising will only emphasize the seller’s virtues.

Do Video Games Encourage Violent Behavior

       This particular reading assignment was shorter than usual and the "yes" and "no" arguments were similar in the sense that its arguments tried to "debunk" the common myths about video games.  The arguments on each side were more opinionated rather than purely primary source related.  In other words, they were more like a meta-study; a study of studies that consits of looking at studies already done, and coming to conclusions about them.  The arguments were secondary sourced opinons that really did not help readers gain insight on the issue at hand because both sides were using the same material!  For example, on pg. 99 the author did not even reference his statistics!  Basically, I was hesitant to take a side because both sides were very biased and used invalid info; just opinions. 
       I am curious to understand why the author of our textbook used these writing pieces for this topic.  My best guess for these writing pieces being selected would be due to the fact that there are too many varialbes with videogames to make a conclusive and valid study.  With that being said, perhaps the authors of our textbook could not find solid articles writing for or against videogames encouraging violent behavior. 
       However, before and after reading this piece I firmly believe that video games do in fact encourage violent behavior.  Even though my belief is based on mere opinion, I do not really have a lot to go off of, considering both of the stances on videogames in this textbook were merely only opinions as well!

Is Advertising Good for Society? p. 129

Is Advertising Good For Society?

       John Calfee argues that advertising is good for society, in the sense that advertisements offer basic information, that can serve the audiences in an unbiased way, so that they can become better educated about pressing issues at hand.  Dinyar Godrej argues that advertising is bad for society on the premise that advertising does not tell us anything about new products, instead it acts upon our emotions in many ways; creating anxiety and culturally and politically shifiting our society in ways we thought advertising never could. 

       John Calfee's main point is that advertising can benefit consumers!  Drawing on various examples from tobacco companies and kellogg's all bran advertising initiavitve, he points out that ad campaigns can function for the public's interest.  The persuasion and skepticism of the audience provides a natural environment for a competitive market that allows consumers and competitiors to borrow information for their own purposes.  In addition, Calfee points out that advertising can use additional information from outside sources, which further endorses his point that audiences are getting more infomration out advertisements, rather than big corporation companies trying to blatantly sell their product.  Advertsing companies are now using an increase in independent information.  Thirdly, he aruges that advertising can be a pervasive phenomenon that can benefit our society at large- extending beyond the interests of the advertisers themselves.  He gives the example of advertising for soap and toothpaste; which has dramatically improved our public hygeine and has prevented teeth from falling out.  Calfee comes to the conclusion that these health problems were alleviated by the advertisers themselves, and that there is overwhelming evidence that unregulated deconomic foreces dictate that much useful information will be provided by brand advertsing and ONLY brand advertising.  Fourthly, he aruges that competition makes advertising and context vague yet precise, in the sense that advertisers have the great ability to communicate so much  in only a few words.  Again, Calfee draws upon examples deep from the past, citing VW beetle's ad campaign during the fuel crisi of the 70's "Think Fast".  Advertising and context also relies on information from other soucres and informational sparity when dealing with competitors, yet competition in and of itself, provides audiences with more information than the actual selling of the advertiser's product.  Finally, Calfee calls on "less bad advertising", to bring attention to audiences the notable faults of their product; however, the ad companies are doing this for a reason!  Nonetheless, Calfee points it out as another way to be more informed in society.

       Dinyar Godrej says that advertising has started to rob our souls with the disproportionate corporate power due to people getting smart about commercials "fraudulent claims".  Advertising companies our now playing on our evolutionary wired brains; they are after our emotion!  For example, companies use images to engage us in our wildest fantasies and dreams; creating a sociological emergency where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  The companies, draw on emotion and anxiety to convince you that you NEED to buy the product now.  Much effort is now being placed in neuromarketing, to channel our emotions, and our brain to buy the product.  We as an audience, might not buy the product at that second, but subconsciously, it has been implanted in our head that we NEED certain things, when in reality, we might not actually need them.  Therefore, Godrej says that our biggest tool against these corporation-owned companies is a constant reality check.  In addition to these companies bombarding our brain with bias and unnecessary information, the companies are changing the culture we are apart of; affecting how NewsPapers and TV show's such as CNN are run.  One study found that 40 percent of the 'news' content of a typlical newspaper originated in press releases, story memos and suggestions from PR companies.  Godrej further argues that she is "further tired" by the ad comapnies consistenly conservative values, when they know about the social, economic, and environmental issues at hand, and their deciseveness to "dismiss" them regardless...  For example, even though McDonald's food is helping to increase the obesity and diabete's epedemic in the world, they try to cover up these statistics by creating Ronald McDonald houses, which accoomadate families with sick children.  McDonald's did not just want to create Ronald McDonald houses, rather this was all apart of their campaign to scheme audiences to eat their food. 

       Personally, after reading both positions and analyzing the pre and post script on the issue, I feel that advertising can be good for society, but is not.  In this day of age, we have to critically analyze the issues of corporate power, mind control, deceptive advertsing, and creating desire and emotion for people to buy things that they really do not need.  And even after knowing that the ad industires know about all of these issues, the ad industry has responded by creating "quick problem-solvers" to what their ad's have created!  Perhaps they do this so that they themselves can police and dictate their own industries, rather than accepting regulation from the outside world.  Even though advertising can be a good thing and give information and benefits to society, it has done the opposite.  I personally feel that the bad has outweighed the good in this particular issue, changing how culture, society and politics are run!  However, the biggest tool we have against the ad industry is just keeping oneself in check with reality.  That is the the most helpful advicee I gleaned from reading this particular issue.

Midterm

RA: 2; Response to Survey

       In this digital age where information is so readily available at the tip of our fingers, conducting a survey to see "just how informed" the American public is, specifically residents in the Bay Area, towards topics that include the local governor's race, and what type of media, if any, they pay attention to, would be a great way to asses how informed the bay area citizens are, in a day and age that is flourishing off of accesible information, in all aspects of life.  My personal survey consisted of five questions that were either true or false questions, or one word answers.  I decided to create the survey in this sort of structure due to the ability to quanitfy data in a much easier manner.  The topics in the survey regarded the local governor's race, the indivduals political party affiliation, and what new's broadcasting company they were most likely to watch if they had to pick one.  My hypothesis was that the people who answered my survey would be somewhat politically informed, in the sense that they knew where they stood on certain issues, but they might not know the background of the election canidates, and how the candiates would run their policies if elected to be the Governor of California; therefore, on a scale of one to ten, my guess would be an eight.  My second hypothesis is that those who are of the same political party of their parents, are also most likely to watch the same broadcasting news network on television.

       The exact questions that I asked were these listed below:

True or False.  Was Meg Whitman the CEO of Ebay?
True of False.  Did Jerry Brown ever run for a presidential election?
On a scale of one to ten?  Ten being the most informed, how politically aware are you of the campaign issues facing Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown?
Are you of the same political party of your parents? If so, state the party.
If you had to pick one news broadcasting company out of the five listed here (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC), which one would you most likely watch?

       The assignment was to create 5 questions regarding the common theme of the last unit read in Alexander and Hanson's book, Taking Sides, which to an extent, touched on the topic of whether people were more informed in a digital decade where almost anything and everything is accesible.  To expand on the theme of citizen's accesiblity to information, the survey was created in order to try and determine if people, specifically, Bay Area citizens, were well informed on the governor election canidates, and whether their own political party affiliation affects which broadcasting network they watch.  The last two questions of my survery were designed to uncover whether people were independent thinkers, and if they purposely sought bias news, to further validate their own political opinions. 
      As mentioned before, the actual survey itself was five questions long and required answers that were brief, and able to quanitfy as results, in order to gain a proper conclsuion of the two hypotheses' that I formed.  The survey questions were printed out on paper in numberical form, just as you can see above, with space for people to write their answers.  I surveyed forty people, which might lead to an inconclusive study due to the minimal participants involved.  One of the reasons the study only consisted of forty people, was because of the lack of availability to a large scale amount of people willing to take the survey.  Some people I asked claimed they were too busy to take the survey, while others did not want to take it due to embarassment, even though I said the survey would be anonymous!  I did the best that I could recruiting people to answer the questions, and I have to say in all honesty, that it was personally hard for me just to obtain the minimal amount of forty people.  Although agreeing with the assignment given, anything less than forty would not have been a conclusive unbiased study.  Also, when asking people to take the survey, I made sure to get people from differnt communities, neighborhoods, and tried to have gender be equally distributed amongst the participants.  In my opinon, I thought that making these efforts would even further prove my hypothesis, and if anything else, it would provide for a more unbiased study.
      
       My results were partially correct.  Hypothesis one was disconfirmed to an extent, so I would personally feel that more research should be conducted, and that the sample size should be increased.  85% of the participants answered correctly to question number one, regarding Meg Whitman being the CEO of Ebay, while a mere 45% answered correctly to Jerry Brown running for Presidency.  The average mean of the forty participants regarding political awareness was that of a 6.5, which was lower  than I predicted (I predicted an 8).  75% of the participants said that they were of the same political party afflilation in respect to those of their parents.  The majority of participants watched MSNBC or FOX, which comprised of 75% of the 40 people.  While BBC and CNN were the less popular and viewed broadcasting companies.  My hypothesis second hypothesis was confirmed in that those who were of the same Political Party of their parents, watched the same news broadcasting network of their parents.  Personally, I would find it extremely interesting to go a step further in this study to determine a) if republican voters watched FOX and if b)democrat voters watched MSNBC.  However, unfortunately this cannot be determined in the study that I conducted.
       The results that I obtained can mean a number of things, but considering my sample size of participants was extremely small, who knows how bias this study may be.  Overall, it is my assumption from these results that the only reason the participants answered so well on question number one id because Meg Whitman has more income to generate on ad campaigns that are flooded in between any and every TV show, which would explain the participants knowledge of her job as CEO at Ebay.  Question number two was not answered as well, and I also blame this on the lack of funding regarding Jerry Brown's campaign.  Even though the participants did answer well on the first question, it does not validate that they are politically aware citizens, and even the participants themselves said they were just over average on a scale of one to ten regarding their own political awareness.  My second hypothesis was correct, which means that parents have a strong influence over their children.  But in a day in age where information is so easily accesible, one would think the children would do reserach on their own for how they feel on certain issues.  I can go as far to say that the children that affiliate with their parent's political party watch the same news broadcasting company, but I think it would be necessary to solely focus on this issue at hand.  Overall hypothesis one was incorrect, and hypothesis 2 was correct to an extent, due to the fact that the sample size was small, and I could have asked a more detailed question.  I believe that those participants who are republicans would be more likely to watch FOX and those particpants that were democrats would be more likely to watch MSNBC.  In this day and age where infomration is EXTREMELY successful, my findings have been that people are not more politically aware than they were twenty years ago, and that even though there is more information out there, it can be filled with bias and untruthfulness.

RA # 2 Survey Questions

1. True or False.  Was Meg Whitman the CEO of Ebay?
2. True of False.  Did Jerry Brown ever run for a presidential election?
3. On a scale of one to ten?  Ten being the most informed, how politically aware are you of the campaign issues facing Meg Whitman and Jerry Brown?
4. Are you of the same political party of your parents?  If so, what party.
5. If you had to pick one news broadcasting company out of the five listed here (CNN, FOX, MSNBC, BBC), which one would you most likely watch?